Oral
Answers to
Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

School Funding

Vincent Cable: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the adequacy of schools funding.

Philip Hammond: More money is going into schools than ever before. Schools will receive over £42 billion of core funding this year and £43.5 billion next year. Our investment in schools is paying off, with 86% of schools now rated good or outstanding compared with 68% in 2010. Schools funding for 2020-21 onwards will be considered along with all areas of non-NHS departmental spending at next year’s spending review.

Vincent Cable: The Chancellor will already be aware that the £400 million for “little extras” has gone down like a lead balloon with schools that cannot afford the basics, but will he explain why there was not even a penny of additional money for post-16 colleges, most of which are in a desperate financial position and cannot carry out their training functions? Is the further education sector just another “little extra”?

Philip Hammond: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have launched a significant initiative for the FE sector with the Government’s new T-level programme, which is being rolled out over the next few years. The programme involves a funding commitment of an additional £500 million a year to increase contact time between learners and teachers or work environments  by 50%.

John Stevenson: Education at all levels clearly matters for our economy and our country. Financing education properly is important, and I will be taking a keen interest during the spending review. However, does the Chancellor agree that money is not everything and that good teaching and well-managed schools are of equal importance?

Philip Hammond: Of course. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They say, don’t they, that no one ever forgets a good teacher. This is about excellence in teaching and in the leadership of our schools, and a well-resourced system led by excellent leaders and staffed by brilliant teachers is the best guarantee of Britain’s bright future.

Ian Austin: It is  not just schools in Dudley that have been inadequately funded. The area overall will have lost over £100 million by next year. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council’s spending power has been cut by 20%, while Surrey, which the Chancellor represents, has actually had an increase. Why is he treating Dudley so unfairly?

John Bercow: This is about the adequacy of school funding.

Ian Austin: Which I am interested in.

John Bercow: Very well done.

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the national funding formula is providing every local authority with more money for every pupil in every school.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the extra £400 million that the Chancellor found in his Budget for school funding. North East Lincolnshire has two nursery schools that have been particularly badly affected by the current funding regime. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and I have met the Education Minister responsible, but it would be helpful if the Chancellor could arrange for us to meet one of his ministerial team to pursue the matter.

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend will know, we are putting a record £6 billion into childcare and guaranteeing working parents 30 hours a week of childcare for three and four-year-olds, but I am happy to ask one of my colleagues to meet him. We are always happy to discuss such issues. This aspect of funding, along with all others, can also be considered in the round at the spending review.

Stephen Gethins: Austerity under this Government and the previous one has cost the Scottish Government £2 billion, meaning less money for education and other public services. Will the Chancellor bring an end to this failed austerity and also repay the £175 million from VAT on police and fire services?

Philip Hammond: What the hon. Gentleman does know, but chooses not to say, is that as a result of the measures announced in the Budget last week, including the huge increase in NHS England funding, Scotland will receive over £2 billion more through the Barnett formula by 2023-24.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Chancellor confirm that public spending on schools has never been higher in the history of our country? Will he also repeat for the benefit of the House the proportion of pupils in good and outstanding schools now, compared with when Labour left office?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both counts. He might also be interested in the OECD data, which shows that England is the top spender in the G7 on schools and colleges delivering primary and secondary education, as a percentage of GDP. We spend more on primary and secondary education than Germany, France, Japan and Australia, both as a percentage of GDP and on a per pupil basis.

Leaving the EU: Tax Revenues

Chris Matheson: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on tax revenues of the UK leaving the EU.

Mel Stride: The Government will be coming forward with a full and appropriate analysis of the impact of the deal we negotiate with the European Union well in time for the meaningful vote.

Chris Matheson: The Government’s own figures demonstrate between a 2% and 8% hit on the broader economy after Brexit. Is it not the case that there is no form of Brexit that will not have a massive impact on the public finances and, therefore, on public services?

Mel Stride: We are in the middle of a negotiation. At the appropriate moment, when we know exactly what the deal is—the deal that is available and that we have negotiated—we will of course come forward with a full and comprehensive analysis of both the fiscal and the economic impacts of that deal.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not important that the public and Parliament are able to scrutinise not just the Treasury assumptions on tax as we leave the European Union but the Treasury assumptions on all aspects of the economy under the Treasury’s CGE—computable general equilibrium—model? Will the Treasury publish that model as soon as possible?

Mel Stride: As I say, we will come forward with a full and appropriate analysis. Of course, prior to the meaningful vote, the Government will ensure that there is appropriate time to fully debate all these matters.

Alison McGovern: Our country already suffers from brutal inequality, so will the Minister say whether that analysis will be broken down by region and sub-region so we can see exactly what the impact of Brexit will be on the communities we represent?

Mel Stride: As the hon. Lady will know, under this Government income inequality is far lower than it was under Labour. I am not going to start getting involved in a running commentary on the negotiations and the various impacts thereof, as that would not be helpful, other than to restate that a full and appropriate analysis will be provided to the House prior to the meaningful vote.

Richard Bacon: Will Ministers consider moving the trigger point for the application of the zero rate of VAT for new build dwellings as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which would end the unintended discrimination, both before and after we leave the EU, against self-build and custom house building projects, while not harming Government revenue?

Mel Stride: That is possibly the most ingenious question I have ever heard in this House, and it is indicative of my hon. Friend’s passion for and commitment to this matter. I recognise the issue he raises on the zero-rating   of new builds, on which he wishes to extend the scope somewhat. I believe that my office has now arranged a meeting with him, and I look forward to it taking place within the coming days and weeks.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister ensure that both he and the Chancellor take steps in advance of the next Budget to ensure that thousands of jobs can be created, particularly in Northern Ireland, by looking at air passenger duty and at VAT in the hospitality sector?

Mel Stride: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have consulted on APD and VAT on tourism in Northern Ireland, and we have now reported back on that consultation. We are setting up a technical working group to look specifically at the issue of short-haul APD to see whether there is some way in which that could be addressed.

Desmond Swayne: Even before that great day, what reassurance can the Minister give to those of us who hold on to the quaint belief that Budgets should balance?

Mel Stride: We take a very balanced approach to the economy, which of course includes ensuring that we stick rigorously to our fiscal rules. We have met the two intermediate rules a full three years early. We continue to bear down on the deficit, and debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to fall throughout every year of this Parliament.

Kirsty Blackman: Each additional EU citizen working in Scotland contributes £10,400 to Government revenue. What assessment has the Minister made of the reduction in tax revenue as a result of the ending of free movement?

Mel Stride: I am sorry to keep reverting to the same answer, but it is effectively the same question that I keep being asked: “What will the analysis look like when the deal is concluded?” Of course that prompts the question of what exactly the deal will be. In the fullness of time, when the deal is agreed, we will come back to the House with a full analysis.

Kirsty Blackman: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can collect customs duties only if it has a working customs system, so how is the roll-out of the customs declaration service going? How is HMRC going to achieve the Government’s commitment in the Red Book to halve the time it takes to apply for customs trusted trader status?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady raises the issue of the CDS system. The current expectation is that that will be fully functioning by the end of March next year, which means we therefore have a robust back-up in the extension of the CHIEF—Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight—system. This is to make sure that that gears up for the huge increase in the number of customs declarations that will need to be made in a no-deal situation. We will of course continue to work hard on that matter.

Simon Clarke: Further to the answer the Financial Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for  Dover (Charlie Elphicke), will he publish, when he is publishing the CGE analysis, the assumptions underlying all potential EU exit scenarios, including those on World Trade Organisation terms and with a free trade agreement?

Mel Stride: The commitment we have made is that the deal agreed between us and the EU—we are confident we will achieve exactly that—will be fully analysed in an appropriate way and delivered to this House so that during the days in the run-up to the meaningful vote all Members of the House will have an opportunity to properly study that analysis.

Jonathan Reynolds: Last week’s Budget certainly did not end austerity, but we all heard that things could be even worse in the event that the Government fail to get a good Brexit deal. In the Chancellor’s own words, that would necessitate a new Budget entirely, so may I ask the Financial Secretary an entirely straight question: how will the Government react to the loss of even 10% of our tax revenues from financial services in the now likely event that our market access is diminished?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of financial services, and of course he will be aware that recent progress has been made on that issue with our European partners in the negotiation. As for the impact of an actual deal, as I say we do not know exactly what that deal will look like at this stage. When we do, we will come forward to the House with an appropriate announcement.

Jonathan Reynolds: The reason the Minister keeps having to give the same answer is that the Government’s answer is woefully inadequate. Business needs certainty and the Government have run out of time, so will he at least acknowledge that securing no more than equivalence which is already available to third countries would be insufficient? Is it not the case that if people want a Brexit deal that really protects jobs and tax revenues, and they want to end austerity, the only way they can have both is with a Labour Government?

Mel Stride: It was all going so well—not that well, actually, but it got a sight worse towards the end. Government Members know that we are taking the responsible decisions to move forward a very difficult and detailed negotiation. At the appropriate time, when we have a deal—we are confident we will do that—we will present it to the House, and the House will then be able to express its view on it.

Universal Credit: Household Income

Gerald Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the potential effect on household income of the roll-out of universal credit.

Elizabeth Truss: Thanks to our universal credit and welfare reforms, we have a record number of families earning wages and a record number of children in houses with work, bringing more income.

Gerald Jones: Labour Members and my constituents would gladly welcome the end of austerity, but the measures laid out in the Chancellor’s Budget certainly will not bring an end to it. Will the Chief Secretary clarify what proportion of the cuts to UC made by George Osborne in the 2015 Budget have now been reversed?

Elizabeth Truss: In the Budget, we announced an additional £630 for every family on UC. The Resolution Foundation has confirmed that this is more generous than the previous benefits system, but it is also better at keeping people in work. The reality is that if the Labour party was in power there would be no money to spend on those families, there would be no money for tax cuts and taxes would be going up for ordinary people.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister knows this, but can she explain to Opposition Members that helping people into work and into higher rates of work, and keeping the credits and benefits they are entitled to matters, and that if Labour’s policy of freezing the roll-out of UC came in many people would not get the support they need to help them have the lives they want?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Under the previous Labour Government, we saw 20% of young people unemployed and we saw families trapped on benefits. What we have done is create a system where it pays to work. There are now a record number of children in houses where parents are out at work. That is good for them and good for the next generation.

Stephen Timms: The Chancellor announced in the Budget a two-week run-on of legacy benefits for those being migrated to universal credit, but it takes five weeks for a universal credit payment to come through, so what does the Chief Secretary expect families to do in the three-week gap between those two?

Elizabeth Truss: We already have an advances system that enables those families to be covered for that period. Universal credit is designed to mirror the world of work to make it easier for people to get into work and that is exactly what it is doing, as opposed to the previous benefits system, which trapped people in poverty and kept people where they are, which is what the Labour party wants to do.

Vicky Ford: Universal credit comes to my constituency next month. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the changes made in last week’s Budget mean that there is more support for working families with children, more support for people with disabilities and more support for the self-employed and that, crucially, people will not need to wait five weeks for a payment?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right on all those points. What we were also able to do in the Budget is make sure that there is £690 boost for those on the national living wage and a £130 basic rate tax cut. We were able to do that because of the improvement in the public finances, thanks to getting more people into work. The reality is that the reason we had £100 billion extra in our Budget is that this Government have taken responsible decisions.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

Adrian Bailey: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the OBR’s Budget 2018 forecasts of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

John Glen: The OBR has set out its forecasting assumptions regarding EU exit and will update them when the details of a deal justify a forecast change. Parliament will be presented with the appropriate analysis to make an informed decision ahead of the vote on the final deal. It is in the interests of the EU and the UK to strike a deal, and we remain confident that we are on track to achieve a mutually advantageous deal in the near future.

Adrian Bailey: The Chancellor’s Budget measures were based on OBR assumptions of an orderly withdrawal from the EU and a 21-month continuation in the customs union. In the event of a no deal, will the Minister share with the House the assessment he has made of the potential decline in tax revenues and consequential changes to his tax and spending plans in the Budget?

John Glen: The Government are fully committed to achieving a good deal with the EU. We will make lots  of assessments during that process, but our mind is focused on achieving that deal and the Government will achieve it.

Nicky Morgan: Mr Speaker, through you, may I assure all Members of this House that the Treasury Committee will take very seriously the job of scrutinising the analysis produced by the Treasury on the final deal on behalf of all Members, and will let Members know the conclusions that we draw from that before the meaningful vote?
My hon. Friend the Minister may well be aware of the OBR discussion paper published last month on Brexit and the OBR’s forecasts. Paragraph 1.27, which talks about the risk of a disorderly Brexit, says that
“while not a direct parallel, it is worth noting that the ‘Three-Day Week’ introduced in early 1974…was associated with a fall in output of…under 3 per cent that quarter.”
The shadow Chancellor might think that the 1970s was a good way to manage the economy, but can my hon. Friend assure us that he does not think that that is the way forward for this country?

John Glen: That is certainly not the way forward. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are doing everything we can to plan for all eventualities. That is why I am taking through a large number of statutory instruments to take account of all possibilities next year, but we are working on, and focused on, achieving a good deal.

Helen Goodman: There is no estimate in the Red Book for the benefits to tax revenues of the measures that we took in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Is that because Ministers are holding that money in their back pocket in case of a no deal?

John Glen: What is clear is that we will have greater freedom in terms of how we implement a sanctions and anti-money laundering regime, and that will give us the opportunity to fix measures that are appropriate for this country, and the revenues will flow from that.

Leo Docherty: Surely the greatest threat to this country is not no deal, but a Labour Government and the tax bombshell that would come with them.

John Glen: I agree wholeheartedly with that characterisation of the risks associated with the Opposition ever getting into power. The enormous increases in taxes for businesses would hit consumers and be appalling for the state of the economy.

Productivity

Lee Rowley: What steps he is taking to increase productivity in the economy.

Robert Jenrick: The Budget set out the next steps in our plan to raise productivity and to grow the economy. That included increasing the national productivity investment fund to more than £37 billion to fund the largest sustained investment in our national infrastructure since the 1970s.

Lee Rowley: With that very increase in infrastructure funding to £37 billion, what opportunities are there in places such as North East Derbyshire to invest in regeneration and communities?

Robert Jenrick: The plans set out in the Budget were designed exactly for parts of the country such as my hon. Friend’s constituency. The £28.8 billion national roads fund will provide the largest ever investment in our strategic roads, and more money for potholes and pinch points. The future high streets fund will enable small towns across the country, including in the midlands, to be transformed and become thriving communities once more.

Chris Leslie: How does the announcement in the Budget that non-NHS capital funding will actually fall in the coming years help the country’s productivity?

Robert Jenrick: The Budget announced the largest increase in capital spend in our economic infrastructure since the 1970s. Under this Government, investment in our economic infrastructure will be £460 million a week higher than under the last Labour Government.

Andrew Jones: The Chancellor has announced that he will be improving productivity by stopping inefficient public sector contracting—basically, abolishing the use of the private finance initiative and private finance 2. Can more be done to reduce the £240 billion bill to our country left by the Labour party?

Robert Jenrick: Yes. We are ending the scandal of PFI that was created by the last Labour Government. Eighty-six per cent. of PFI contracts were signed by the last Labour Government—91% by value. In addition to retiring PFI we are creating a crack team, beginning in  the Department of Health and Social Care, to look back at some of those old contracts and to clean out the stable left by the last Labour Government.

John Cryer: This Government and their coalition predecessors have overseen the longest slump in wages in living memory. What effect has that had on productivity?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but real wages are rising. The Government believe that the best way to support working people across the country is to get them into work. Employment is now at its highest level in my lifetime, with 3 million more jobs created and 1 million fewer people on the dole.

Multinational Digital Businesses: Tax

Neil O'Brien: What plans he has to raise additional tax revenues from multinational digital businesses.

Philip Hammond: The Government have announced that we will be introducing a digital services tax on the UK revenues of large social media platforms, search engines and online marketplaces. The tax is expected to raise around £1.5 billion over four years, ensuring that digital businesses make a fair contribution to the public finances.

Neil O'Brien: Members of Market Harborough chamber of commerce and my local Federation of Small Businesses have for some time been calling for the Chancellor to bring in a new tax on the digital giants and to use the proceeds to help small businesses on the high street. First, may I congratulate the Chancellor on taking such sensible economic advice? Secondly, can he tell us how much small businesses will benefit by?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his constituents for the advice; and, while we are at it, I wish him a happy birthday. The digital services tax aims to improve sustainability and fairness in the tax system. Separately, the Government have announced measures to support small retailers by cutting their business rates by one third for two years. Just to put that in a local context for my hon. Friend, there are 660 retail properties in Harborough local authority area with a rateable value of below £51,000, which means that there are 660 properties that could benefit.

Meg Hillier: Before we get too excited about this, we should bear it in mind that it is still a small amount of the profits of these large companies that will come  into the Exchequer. Will the Chancellor explain the timetable for the consultation and when he expects to get any tax revenue into the Exchequer from this measure?

Philip Hammond: As I said last week, the proposal is to introduce the tax in 2020, but in the meantime we will continue to lead international negotiations on the potential for an internationally agreed tax. Such a tax would in fact be preferable to nationally implemented schemes, but at the moment it is proving very difficult to agree. I  hope that, by the time we get to our implementation date in April 2020, we may yet have made progress on an internationally agreed measure.

Support for the High Street

Alex Burghart: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the high street.

Mark Pawsey: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the high street.

Mel Stride: As my hon. Friends will know, in the Budget, we allocated £1.5 billion to supporting our high streets, including £675 million for our future high streets fund, and reduced business rates for smaller retailers by one third for the next two years.

Alex Burghart: Businesses in my constituency are giddy with excitement at this huge reduction in business rates. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what proportion of businesses on the high street are going to benefit from this?

Mel Stride: I am also giddy with excitement about this, and giddy with excitement to be able to inform my hon. Friend that up to 90% of smaller retailers, many of them in our high streets, will benefit from this package. That is in complete contrast to Labour’s policy of putting up taxes on small businesses. That is no way to support our high streets; it is Labour’s way to destroy business and jobs.

Mark Pawsey: On 1 December, I will be visiting retailers in Rugby town centre to support the Federation of Small Businesses’ Small Business Saturday. These businesses are in a tough and fast-changing environment. Does the Minister agree that the business rate incentive that he mentioned will go some way towards levelling the playing field between those retailers and those who operate online?

Mel Stride: I certainly agree. These changes will boost our high streets, and the FSB is to be congratulated on Small Business Saturday. I shall be in Ramsgate with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) speaking to some of his retailers about this. I extend a non-partisan invitation to Labour Members to join us: we will go up our high streets talking to retailers about reducing their rates, and they can talk about the tax increases that they have in store for them.

Rachael Maskell: The very short-term measure to give some businesses relief was announced at the Budget, but why did not the Chancellor announce the real cause of escalating business rates—the investors on our high streets from overseas who are really exploiting the market?

Mel Stride: I am slightly disappointed by the approach taken by the hon. Lady, for whom I have great respect, in pouring cold water on a major fiscal move such as this to reduce high street rates by one third, which will benefit approximately 90% of smaller retailers in her constituency. That is a shot in the arm for our high street and a shot in the arm for British business.

Jim McMahon: In truth, this is very small beans for high street stores. It is correct that some people will benefit, but also correct that many of our town centres and shopping centres have vacancies that this will not even touch, so what more can Government do to address the fundamental unfairness in the system?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as he points to the fact that high streets need to reinvent themselves—to transition—in order to adjust to the growth in online marketplaces. That is exactly what our future high streets fund is all about, with £675 million going out via local authorities, following competitive bids, to make sure that we reshape those high streets in exactly the way that he would like them to be reshaped, get rid of the shops that are shut down and reinvigorate and rejuvenate the very centres of our communities.

Support for Businesses and Entrepreneurs

David Amess: What steps he is taking to support businesses and entrepreneurs.

Philip Hammond: This Government are determined to make the UK a great place to do business, so we are keeping taxes low and helping businesses and entrepreneurs to access the support they need. We have cut corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G20, we have made changes to business rates worth over £13 billion by 2023, we have introduced a £1 million annual investment allowance, and we are helping exporters by increasing UK Export Finance’s direct lending capacity by up to £2 billion.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the BEST enterprise growth centre at Hythe in Southend, which provides free advice for businesses to grow and prosper, and has so far helped over 3,000 businesses in Essex, through start-up centres, to increase their profitability?

Philip Hammond: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the BEST growth hub on its support for Essex businesses. That is a clear example of how England’s 38 growth hubs are helping businesses to start up and grow. Businesses in Essex, like those across England, will benefit from the further measures that I have announced on management training, mentoring and local peer networks, which will help businesses to grow by learning from our leading business schools and companies, as well as from one another.

Melanie Onn: Shops in Grimsby tell me that the biggest issue they face at the moment is shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, and local residents tell me that they are too scared to go into the town centre. We need to make sure that we have a strong police presence. What assurance can the Chancellor give me that the additional pension costs that Humberside police are facing will be covered by central grant funding, to prevent the loss of 200 additional police officers?

Philip Hammond: As I have told the House before, the 2016 pension changes were notified to Departments in 2016 in their settlement letters and have been factored into departmental calculations since then. The 2018   increases in public sector pension contributions will be covered in full by the Treasury in 2019-20 and then looked at in the round in the spending review.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful for the Chancellor’s recognition in his Budget speech of the work that the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking has done on dispute resolution between banks and businesses. The Financial Conduct Authority’s report into that matter recommends
“a role for both an extended ombudsman service and a tribunal, as they meet different needs.”
Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the introduction of a tribunal?

Philip Hammond: The Financial Ombudsman Service can make judgments faster and at a lower cost than a tribunal, and the Government therefore think that that is a better way to go than the creation of a tribunal, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter in more detail.

Chris Law: The £150 million investment in the Tay cities deal is welcome, but it short-changes my city and the surrounding area by £50 million—the Scottish Government have committed £200 million. Given the serious news of the proposed closure of Michelin in Dundee, with 850 jobs at risk, will the UK Government urgently commit further funding to the Tay cities deal and work constructively with the Scottish Government to protect those jobs?

Philip Hammond: My understanding is that, after negotiations, including negotiations involving the Scottish Government, the Tay cities deal is almost agreed, and we hope to see it signed very shortly. Of course, where there are large-scale redundancies in any area, there are other mechanisms by which we can provide support.

Jack Lopresti: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on maintaining entrepreneurs’ relief. Does he agree that that not only helps to support people starting their own business but sends a strong signal that this Government are on the side of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and social mobility?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said in my Budget speech, after considering representations to scrap entrepreneurs’ relief, I reached the conclusion that, unless we support entrepreneurs, we will not have a dynamic and vibrant economy that can support our first-class public services. Those two things go hand in hand.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Chancellor aware that the businesses and entrepreneurs I speak to look back fondly to the time of the global economic collapse—not a Labour recession, but a world economic collapse—when a man called Alistair Darling, who was a real Chancellor, led us through that crisis? [Interruption.] At a time when everyone is totally depressed about Brexit, our businesses and entrepreneurs want a real statesman and a real Chancellor to lead this country.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman’s synthetic anger, which I have been enjoying for the best part of 20 years, is always a spectacle worth observing. I thank him for  another episode. If he really thinks that businesses look back fondly to the financial crisis, he needs to get out a bit more.

Clive Lewis: In his Budget speech, the Chancellor failed to make one single mention of climate change, yet by scrapping enhanced capital allowances for small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have again cut vital support for energy efficiency and decarbonisation. Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate change report and given this Government’s support for fracking and their abysmal failure on tidal, onshore wind and solar, do the Conservatives realise that not only will they fail to meet their climate change targets, but they have breached their quota for hot air on this issue?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman might have been too busy preparing his question for today and in the process have missed the industrial energy efficiency fund that we have committed to introduce.

Skills and Training Funding

Alan Mak: What fiscal steps he is taking to provide funding for skills and training.

Elizabeth Truss: By 2019-20, we will be spending £2.5 billion on apprenticeships in England every year through the apprenticeship levy. In this Budget, we have given employers more flexibility to deploy it as they see best.

Alan Mak: Greater investment in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills is key to boosting employment in our growing digital economy. What support can the Chief Secretary give to ensure more training is available to our next generation of scientists, engineers and tech entrepreneurs?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right. We know that people with STEM skills have higher earnings. That is why we put more money into the maths premium last year to encourage more students to study that subject from 16 to 18. This year, we have launched a new programme to enable the better retention of maths and physics teachers in our schools.

Gareth Snell: If, as the Chief Secretary says, there is now more money for skills funding, why did not the Chancellor announce in his Budget speech an uplifting of the cap on sixth-form and college funding from £4,000, which is causing real problems?

Elizabeth Truss: What the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech is the fact that we are giving employers more flexibility over apprenticeships, which they  have asked for, and we are seeing more and more people going into high-level apprenticeships under this Government.

Robert Courts: West Oxfordshire businesses are thriving, but they are clear that their major challenge is access to people with the right skills. Will the Minister please give an update on the national retraining scheme and how that will help?

Elizabeth Truss: We put £20 million into the national retraining scheme, and I am very much looking forward to visiting my hon. Friend in Oxfordshire to see some of those fantastic businesses in situ.

Jim Shannon: Bearing in mind that two thirds of UK firms have expressed concerns about a skills gap, will the Minister further outline what steps her Department has taken to provide schemes and support to businesses that are willing to take on apprenticeships but have not so far done so?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we want to encourage more small and medium-sized enterprises to take on apprenticeships. That is why we have reduced the level from 10% to 5% for co-investment, which will encourage more small firms to get involved, as well as extending the amount that can be used down the supply chain.

Public Finances

Theresa Villiers: What steps he is taking to reduce the deficit and improve the public finances.

Philip Hammond: The 9.9% of GDP post-war record deficit that we inherited in 2010 is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to fall to 1.2% this year and to 0.8% of GDP in 2023-24, the lowest level since the start of the century. The OBR’s Budget forecast shows that borrowing will be lower in every year than was the case at the spring statement, and that we are now meeting our two fiscal rules three years early. We continue to be committed to our balanced approach—getting debt down, keeping taxes low, investing in Britain’s future and funding our public services, with the spending review to take place next year.

Theresa Villiers: The nature of the economic cycle means that, inevitably, over the next few years there will be a global economic downturn. Can the Chancellor reassure the House that he will always retain sufficient headroom and resilience in the public finances to enable us to respond strongly to such a shock?

Philip Hammond: Yes, and I remind my right hon. Friend that the fiscal targets are set in cyclically adjusted terms, so that in the event of an economic downturn, fiscal space is automatically created. In addition, I have kept a buffer, over and above any cyclical dividend, of £15.4 billion in 2020-21 to allow us firepower should any unexpected events cause headwinds for the economy.

Ruth George: After the Budget, then, more than 3 million families will still be losing an average of £2,100 a year by transferring to universal credit. With 40% of claimants in debt and 38% in rent arrears, are not the Government simply transferring the nation’s debt into the pockets of the poorest families, and what assessment has the Chancellor made of their ability to move into work?

John Bercow: The hon. Lady should not have spoiled it. She was doing very well before she added a further bit that was not required.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady will have heard the Chief Secretary remind the House earlier that the Resolution Foundation has now identified that, with the additional money we have put into universal credit, the system is now more generous than the legacy system that it replaces. It has a clear incentivisation to work, and those of us on the Government Benches believe that the best way we support and help and families is to help them into work. That is the sustainable route out of poverty.

Christopher Chope: Parliament passed legislation in 2016 to save hundreds of millions of pounds each year by limiting public sector exit payments to £95,000. As my right hon. Friend is so keen to improve public finances, why has he not yet implemented that legislation, which would have outlawed the £474,000 obscene exit payment recently announced for the chief executive of Dorset County Council, with many similar payouts to follow?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly legitimate question. This is a complicated area. We are making progress on it and we hope and expect to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Anneliese Dodds: Just as the Chancellor’s claims to end austerity already lie in tatters, so do his claims of fiscal prudence, given the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ assessment that the Chancellor took a bit of a gamble with this Budget. Does he agree with the Father of the House that the Budget was based on an
“unexpected surprise”,
and that,
“news about…tax revenues recently may not last”—[Official Report, 1 November 2018; Vol. 648, c. 1099.]?
If so, how worried is he about Standard & Poor’s warnings about the potential for recession if we leave the EU without a deal?

Philip Hammond: The Opposition try to have it all ways. Look, the truth is that our remarkable record in creating jobs—3.3 million new jobs in this country since 2010—forecast by the OBR to continue over the next four years, has led to a boom in fiscal revenues, that we have been able to deploy. The Budget that I delivered to the House last Monday shows debt falling in every year, the deficit falling in every year, and both of those metrics lower today than they were forecast to be at the spring. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) says, “Inequality up,” but unfortunately for him, he is wrong. Inequality in this country is lower now than it was under the last Labour Government.

Infrastructure: South-West

Steve Double: What steps he is taking to provide funding for infrastructure in the South West.

Robert Jenrick: Plymouth and the West of England Combined Authority will benefit from the £2.5 billion Transforming Cities fund extended in the Budget. Cornwall will receive £79 million towards the A30 St Austell link road, which my hon. Friend campaigned for.

Steve Double: I thank the Minister for that answer, but Cornwall relies on its only mainline rail link through south Devon, and it is well documented that it is very vulnerable to adverse weather. The Budget Red Book contained a reference to improving that rail link, but some in the south-west have doubted the Government’s commitment to it. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to improving that railway, and that we now need Network Rail to get on with it?

Robert Jenrick: Protecting the line at Dawlish is a national priority. South-west Conservative MPs, including my hon. Friend, pressed that upon the Chancellor and I, and we restated our commitment in the Budget to finding a permanent solution that delivers super-resilience at Dawlish.

One Yorkshire Devolution Deal

John Grogan: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the proposed One Yorkshire devolution deal.

Robert Jenrick: I have regular conversations with my counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including on the One Yorkshire proposals. We have said that we will respond to any proposals that we receive in good faith, assuming that they are able to provide for economic growth in a clearly defined economic geography.

John Grogan: Does the Minister agree that the detailed economic case for One Yorkshire devolution, presented to the Treasury and to other Ministries by no fewer than 18 Yorkshire councils, many of them Conservative, is worthy of detailed discussion between the Government and local authorities, as specified in the legislation?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter. I have met stakeholders from the region on a number of occasions, including Councillor Judith Blake from Leeds. We have said that to progress this matter we want to see the Sheffield city region become fully functioning and the Mayor, who is now elected, able to conduct his duties. We think that is a reasonable way forward, so that local people in that area are not let down.

Renewable Energy

Seema Malhotra: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of public funding for renewable energy since 2010.

Elizabeth Truss: Due to the Government’s support, we have already seen the cost of renewables fall significantly. Offshore wind has halved in price since 2015 and the costs of other technologies are also falling.

Seema Malhotra: It is very surprising that the Chancellor’s Budget did not make any new commitments on renewable energy. Even worse is the fact that that comes with slashed grants for electric vehicles and plans to remove  support for small-scale renewables. This was described by RenewableUK as a major blow to the sector. It also comes with the pursuit of fracking at any cost. On one of the greatest challenges we face today—clean, low carbon sustainable energy sources—why are the Government rolling back the clock?

Elizabeth Truss: Since 2010, we have reduced carbon dioxide emissions across the economy by 26% and across electricity generation by 47%. We are making sure that those technologies are competitive, so that they work well in the market, and so that we deliver lower prices to customers and lower levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Kemi Badenoch: What steps he is taking to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

Mel Stride: The Government have brought in over 100 measures to clamp down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance since 2010, protecting and yielding over £200 billion in revenue.

Kemi Badenoch: Some 19% of all businesses declared deliberate tax defaulters by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs this year were from the restaurant and takeaway business. Does the Minister agree that companies in this industry that do pay their taxes, such as the Chesterford Group in my constituency, do not have a level playing field?

Mel Stride: I cannot comment on a specific taxpayer, but I can say that HMRC does publish quarterly the names of those who deliberately default on taxation, as a method of bringing them forward to settle with HMRC. We have brought in a further 21 measures in the Budget to raise a further £2 billion by 2023-24 by clamping down on avoidance and evasion.

David Hanson: How does a £200 million cut, announced in the Red Book, help with HMRC’s collection of taxes?

Mel Stride: HMRC has had an additional investment since 2010 of £2 billion. It has 28,000 full-time equivalent staff engaged in the mission of tax inspection and clamping down on avoidance and evasion. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the entire world, at 5.7%. That is far lower than was the case under the previous Labour Government. In fact, if we were stuck with the levels of poor tax collection under the Labour party, we would lose revenues equivalent to employing every policeman and policewoman in England and Wales.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is a very lucky boy today.

Edward Leigh: Topical question number one, sir.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself. The reason why he is a lucky boy is that he is going to get two bites of the cherry. What he should now say is—mouth it after me—“Question 19”.

Edward Leigh: So what are the Government doing to reduce—

John Bercow: No, no. I realise the hon. Gentleman has only been here for, I think, 35 years, but what he has to say is, “Question 19”.

SMEs: Tax

Edward Leigh: What recent steps he has taken to reduce the amount of tax payable by small and medium-sized enterprises.

Mel Stride: My hon. and gallant Friend always gets there in the end and in my experience he is very good when he does. I can tell him that we do a great deal to support small businesses. We announced our one third reduction in the small business rate. Our tax rate for small business is declining. It is now 19% and it will fall to 17% in the next couple of years.

Edward Leigh: Can the Minister assure me that by the end of this Parliament small businesses in Gainsborough will be paying less tax than they are now?

Mel Stride: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the smaller retailers in his constituency will be paying about a third less in rates. He will see a further diminution of the general corporation tax rate. It was 28% in 2010 and it is now coming down to 17%. Of course, they will also benefit from other measures, such as the freezing of fuel duty, which will help many small businesses.

Topical Questions

Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: My principal responsibility is to ensure economic stability and the continued prosperity of the British people, and I will do so by building on the plans set out in last week’s Budget. This is a Budget that supports our vital public services, such as the NHS, invests in Britain’s future, keeps taxes low and continues to reduce the nation’s debt. It is a Budget that shows that the hard work of the British people is paying off and that austerity is finally coming to an end. We have turned an important corner in this country and a bright, prosperous future is within our grasp.

John Bercow: Hopelessly long.

Edward Leigh: As our economy is cyclical and sooner or later there will be another recession, will the Chancellor take this opportunity to deny the claim that by spending an extra £30 billion by 2023, we are going to be taking out of the economy exactly the same proportion as Gordon Brown did at the end of his Chancellorship? Will the Chancellor assure me that we remain as committed as ever to fixing the roof while the sun shines and that he has a firm plan to reduce the debt?

Philip Hammond: Yes, I have a very firm plan to reduce the debt. My hon. Friend will see from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast published last week that the debt will fall from over 85% of GDP to below  75% by the end of the forecast period. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have decided to take a balanced approach, where reducing the debt has to take place in tandem with keeping taxes low, supporting our public services and, probably most important of all, investing capital in Britain’s future.

John Martin McDonnell: There are reports that the Cabinet has been briefed on a possible deal with the EU that includes a customs union that can be ended through a review mechanism at any stage in the future. So after two years of uncertainty, of business holding back investment and of jobs relocated abroad, we are now presented with a fudge that gives no guarantees on a long-term basis of our future trading relationship. Investment in our economy today is the lowest in the G7 and falling. If a customs union with our largest trading partner can be ripped up at any stage, how does the Chancellor expect businesses to have the confidence to bring forward the long-term investment needed to support our economy?

Philip Hammond: That was a perfectly reasonable—if a little long—question, but unfortunately, it was built on a false premise. The Cabinet has received no such briefing.

John Martin McDonnell: Well, it is interesting, because the Chancellor knows then that a free trade agreement without a permanent customs union will not protect our economy from the damage that a hard Brexit would cause, so to guarantee frictionless supply chains, we need a secure, permanent customs union with the EU. Businesses and workers are looking to the Chancellor to fight their corner, so will he join me and MPs across the House in calling on the Prime Minister to do the sensible thing and agree a permanent customs union that protects our economy, and yes, the livelihoods of millions of our people?

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman and I do not share very much in common, but we do share the desire to maintain frictionless trade between the UK and the European Union to protect British businesses and British jobs. His preferred way of achieving that is through a customs union; the Prime Minister has set out an alternative plan that will ensure that we can continue to have frictionless trade with the European Union. I prefer the Prime Minister’s plan.

Fiona Bruce: Four thousand current and former employees of Roadchef, many of whom are elderly, including some 150 who worked at Sandbach services, will be pleased that there has been success in their campaign for money that they are entitled to from HMRC, but can Ministers provide an assurance from HMRC that there will be no tax payable on these moneys going in or out of the Roadchef employees benefit trust?

Mel Stride: I obviously cannot comment on the specific case of the Sandbach services employees, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have looked extensively at this matter and consulted various Members across both sides of the  House. I am satisfied that HMRC in general has conducted itself appropriately over this whole issue, but I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point that she raised.

Alex Norris: There were over 9,000 words in the Chancellor’s Budget speech, but not one mention of Nottingham or the east midlands. In the east midlands, we have multiple investable schemes that will drive growth in our region. When will the Treasury back the east midlands?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman obviously missed the Chancellor’s speech at the Conservative party conference, in which he announced the creation of a special area of economic activity at Toton, just south of Nottingham, which we expect to become one of the UK’s leading areas of economic growth. We also announced in the Budget an increase in the transforming cities fund, which will directly benefit Nottingham.

Craig Tracey: I welcome the announcement in last week’s Budget of investment in our high streets, which will be particularly welcome in Bedworth in my constituency. I had meetings with local businesses recently on this very issue, and particularly on their frustrations at the lack of ambition of the local borough council. Can the Minister advise how local councils such as Nuneaton and Bedworth can best take advantage of this excellent opportunity?

Mel Stride: I recognise the huge amount of work my hon. Friend has put into the issue of revitalising our high streets, and his representations to me and other colleagues. The £675 million future high streets fund will be bid for on a competitive basis through local authorities, so it is very important that all Members encourage their local authorities to come forward with their bids.

Gareth Thomas: The co-operative movement in the UK has a turnover of £36 billion. Given that it employs thousands, and that thousands will benefit as a result of the economic and social benefits that co-operatives bring, why was there no mention of the co-op movement in the Budget?

John Glen: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the co-operative movement is very important to our economy; we have met to discuss various aspects of its future. I am happy to meet him again to discuss the matters that he wishes to bring forward.

Luke Hall: Does the Budget not demonstrate that we have turned around the economic catastrophe left to us by the Labour party to deliver billions of pounds for public services, and tax cuts for millions of people up and down this country?

Philip Hammond: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The Government have delivered eight straight years of economic growth, over 3.3 million more people in work, and higher employment in every region and nation of  the United Kingdom. Wages are growing at their fastest pace in almost a decade, and the deficit is down by well over four fifths. In the Budget, we have gone further, cutting taxes and funding our vital public services.

James Frith: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Schools are still reeling from the Chancellor’s “little extras” quip, while colleges and sixth forms were given no thought at all in the Budget. Further to the letter of 15 October from the Education Committee to the Chancellor, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accept our invitation to give oral evidence to our inquiry on school and college funding?

Elizabeth Truss: As the Chancellor pointed out, we have already put an additional £1.3 billion into schools’ budgets, which means that they are rising in real terms, and it is entirely proper for Education Ministers to appear in front of the Select Committee to discuss those issues.

Richard Bacon: Some people are worried about the end of Help to Buy in five years’ time. Given that it is a subsidy on demand, why not soften the blow with a subsidy on supply through a help to build programme, which would help more ordinary people bring forward their own schemes at prices they can afford?

Philip Hammond: I have heard my hon. Friend’s representations on behalf of self-builders; twice in one sitting is probably a record. I will treat them as representations for the next fiscal event and will look at them accordingly.

Daniel Zeichner: Some 37 million packs of medicines are imported each month into the country from the EU, and people are rightly concerned about security of supply next year. The Government have advised the industry to stockpile. Will the Chancellor tell the House how much the Government are paying for that?

Philip Hammond: That is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, and I know that the Health Secretary is in discussion with the pharmaceutical industry. We are supporting the Department with allocations from the £3.5 billion I have allocated for Brexit preparations. We will ensure that adequate supplies of medicines are stockpiled if there is any risk of disruption at the channel ports.

Greg Hands: One way both to reduce the deficit and to deliver a reduction in tax rates would be to do something about stamp duty land tax. Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show over the scorecard period a £4 billion reduction in stamp duty land tax receipts—down a staggering £800 million since the last forecast in March. Can the Chancellor give me an assurance that the Treasury is actively looking at this issue and designing a solution?

Philip Hammond: What I can do is assure my right hon. Friend that we look actively at all taxes at every fiscal event. He will know that stamp duty land tax has been a  subject of some interest and, indeed, controversy. We do look very carefully at the receipts data, but we also have to look at the distributional impact of different taxes. As my right hon. Friend will understand, doing anything about high rates of stamp duty land tax would have a very uneven distributional impact.

Alistair Carmichael: Renewable energy developers working on wave and tidal power have presented a proposal for what they call innovation power purchase agreements, a mechanism whereby they might finally get their devices over the line into commercial deployment. Will the Chancellor, or perhaps the Chief Secretary, work with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a proposal that could allow them and the developers to see the fruition of what could be a very important part of the Government’s industrial strategy?

Elizabeth Truss: As part of the spending review, we will look at the most efficient way in which we can meet our carbon targets. I am working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in that regard.

Luke Graham: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement of £150 million of new money for the Tay cities deal, but may I ask him to direct some of his officials to speak to colleagues in BEIS to establish what support could be given to the devolved Administration and to Michelin, which is to close its tyre factory in Dundee? The closure could mean the loss of 850 jobs, which could not only have an impact on Dundee but cause ripples throughout the region.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that both BEIS and the Department for Work and Pensions are already aware of that very large job loss, and I will ensure that my colleagues are looking at it.

Stephen Morgan: What role, if any, have the readiness for Brexit and resource levels of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs played in influencing the Prime Minister to consider extending the customs transition period?

Mel Stride: HMRC has a central role in ensuring that we are ready for Brexit, specifically in the unlikely event of a no-deal day one scenario. That has included the recruitment of 2,300 additional staff, and we will have an additional 5,000 staff by the end of the year. We are ready, and we will be ready, for wherever this deal lands.

Alex Chalk: Motorists want to see the earliest possible end to the traffic misery on the A417 caused by the air balloon pinch point. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Budget, through its extra firepower for roads, provides the best possible platform for such a vital scheme?

Robert Jenrick: I have met my hon. Friend and his Gloucestershire colleagues to discuss this matter. It was with strategic roads and roundabouts, such as the air   balloon roundabout, in mind that we made the largest ever investment in our strategic road network. Decisions on specific roads will be made next year.

Neil Gray: I welcome HMRC’s rather belated decision to return tax wrongly paid by the Roadchef employees benefit trust. It is clearly now necessary to honour previously made commitments in respect of tax implications for beneficiaries. Did HMRC use its discretion to make that payout, and, if so, on what basis?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman and I have had a number of discussions about this issue, both formal and informal, and have engaged in an Adjournment debate on it. I have always been very attentive to his specific questions, but if he would like me to meet him again to discuss the issue further, I should be more than happy to do so.

Henry Smith: Previous independent assessments of the impact of air passenger duty have shown that it costs the economy more than it brings into the Exchequer. May I have an assurance that the Treasury will do its own modelling to ensure that this island trading nation can compete better in the future?

Philip Hammond: Yes. The Treasury regularly receives independent assessments that tell us that taxes cost us more than they deliver to us, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Treasury always does its own modelling to reach its decisions.

Stewart Hosie: The Chancellor is aware of the sad news about the Michelin plant in my constituency; its potential closure in 2020 would mean the loss of 850 jobs. It is early days, but may I ask the Chancellor for a straightforward commitment to work constructively with the Scottish Government and others—who are meeting representatives of the business today—to do whatever he can to preserve quality manufacturing on the site, and to protect and preserve as many jobs as possible?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course we will work constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can mitigate in every way possible the impact on the community of these very large numbers of job losses.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I do not think we have heard from Mr Knight.

Julian Knight: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association released research demonstrating that all 270 new-generation diesel vehicles tested to date are below the emissions threshold on the road. In the light of this, will the Treasury team meet me and other colleagues to discuss how we can construct a road tax system that promotes clean diesel over old diesel and protects 9,000 jobs in my constituency?

Robert Jenrick: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend, who I know is a champion for Jaguar Land Rover. I hope it will reassure him to know that I will discuss these issues with the chief executive of that company later today.

Chris Bryant: If we took every single person who has suffered a major traumatic brain injury—for instance, from a car crash—from needing four people in order to be able to wash, clothe and look after themselves to needing just one, and thereby leading a more independent life, we could save the taxpayers £5 billion a year. May I meet with the Chancellor to explain all this?

John Glen: rose—

Chris Bryant: With the Chancellor.

John Glen: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a previous interest in this subject. I commend the excellent work he has done with the all-party group on acquired brain injury, and am happy to meet him to discuss the matters he has raised.

John Bercow: Before we come to the first of the two urgent questions, I remind the House that the sitting will be suspended at 1.45 pm and will resume at 3.15 pm. That is to accommodate the fact that significant numbers of colleagues are going to the commemorative Remembrance service in St Margaret’s church. It might be useful for colleagues to know that both urgent questions will therefore finish by 1.45 pm.

POLICE PENSION LIABILITIES

Louise Haigh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on police pension liabilities and the National Police Chiefs Council’s threatened legal action against the Government.

Nick Hurd: I am sure the whole House agrees about the need for our public sector pensions to be properly funded and affordable for the long term. That is why the Government announced changes to the discount rate that applies to those pensions at both Budget 2016 and Budget 2018. These changes, I should stress, are based on the latest independent Office for Budget Responsibility projections for future GDP growth.
This change will lead to increased employer pension contribution costs for all unfunded public sector pensions, including those of police forces. Budget 2018 confirmed that there will be funding from the reserve to pay for part of the increase in costs for public services, including the police in 2019-20. My officials are in discussions with representatives from the NPCC and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to discuss how this additional funding will be distributed. Funding arrangements for 2020-21 onwards will be discussed as part of the spending review.
As the Chancellor made clear at the Budget, the Government recognise the pressures on the police, including from the changing nature of crime, and we will—Home Office and Treasury Ministers working together—review police spending power ahead of announcing the police funding settlement for 2019-20 in early December.

Louise Haigh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
In a written ministerial statement in September, the Government thought it reasonable to try to sneak out the proposed changes to public sector pensions. The NPCC has said that this liability, dropped on police chiefs at the last minute, will cost £165 million in the next financial year, rising to £420 million in 2020-21. This could amount to the loss of a further 10,000 police officers. Despite what the Prime Minister has repeatedly, and shamefully, told this House—that the police have known about these changes “for years”—police chiefs issued a public statement rebuking the Prime Minister and saying the first notification they had came in September 2018. So quite apart from the fact that the Prime Minister should apologise to the House, the Government should apologise to the police for such rank incompetence. Is it any wonder that police chiefs are now taking the unprecedented step of taking the Government to court?
Without the Minister giving a firm commitment today that his Government will meet the full cost of these pension changes, it is inevitable that further officers will be lost next year. West Midlands police are preparing an emergency budget that could cost 500 police officers; the figure is £43 million for the Metropolitan police alone. Will the Minister commit today—not in the comprehensive spending review in a year’s time, and not in the police grant next month—to meeting the £165 million cost that the Government have left the police to pick up  next year? Police forces need this security urgently. If he will not, does he accept that this will mean officer numbers being cut to the lowest levels on record?
Does the Minister further realise that the pension changes will cancel out the council tax rise that hard-pressed ratepayers have coughed up this year? Is that what he meant when he said that the precept rise would enable forces to spend on their local priorities? Will he confirm whether the Home Office has conducted any analysis of whether the police can afford to meet these changes, given that he has been telling them repeatedly to spend their reserves? How many police forces will go bankrupt as a result of these changes?
The police and our communities are facing twin crises. The surge in violent crime is devastating lives, and the crisis in police finances is leaving the police unable to respond. The Government’s serious violence taskforce has met just four times since its creation. That is a shameful response to the horrifying rise in violence, but the Government are not just complacent; they are actively making it harder for the police to keep us safe. It is time for Ministers to step back from the brink, apologise for the risks they have taken with our safety and give the police the resources they need to fight crime.

Nick Hurd: It would have been nice to hear from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson some commitments or some recognition of the need to keep our public sector pensions properly funded and long-term affordable. I am sure that other Labour MPs will want to take the opportunity to make that clear to their constituents. That was one of the most disgraceful pieces of shroud-waving that I have heard, even from Labour Members. The hon. Lady knows the reality, because I am sure that she has studied Budget 2016 in detail. In it, the Treasury made it quite clear that there were likely to be changes to the discount rate that applies to public pensions.
What has changed is the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection for GDP growth, which changes the discount rate that applies. That is a change, and I fully accept—the hon. Lady has heard me say this publicly—that it has resulted in an unbudgeted cost for the police of around £165 million next year. That is a serious issue—she has heard me say that publicly as well. I set that alongside other serious issues facing the police, such as the significant shift in demand and pressure on them, which we have recognised. We are working extremely hard with the police and the Treasury to find a solution.
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that, as a result of the action that this Government have taken on the economy, we are now in much better shape to resume our investment in policing. That is why, in this year, we have taken steps that have resulted in £460 million-worth of additional public money going into our policing system—the police settlement that Labour MPs voted against. We are on track to invest more as a country in our policing than promised under Labour, so she needs to be very careful about what she says about projections in this context.
Finally, as a London MP, I take offence at the hon. Lady’s statement about complacency on serious violence. She knows, because I know how seriously she takes this job, that we are dealing with one of the most serious challenges that this society faces. We have beaten it before, 10 years ago, but we know that it is not simple.  We know that it involves complex, long-term work, which is why, under this Home Secretary, our ambition has been increased so that there will be more money for policing and more powers for the police coming through in the Offensive Weapons Bill. There is almost a quarter of a billion pounds of public money being committed to critical work on prevention and early intervention to ensure that we get the right balance between robust policing and really good prevention and intervention work over time. She knows, or should know, that we cannot police our way out of this system. We are addressing a very serious challenge with the right level of ambition and partnership with the police and the police and crime commissioners.

Andrew Selous: Some Members across the House are hoping that December’s police funding settlement may bring good news about dealing with unfair damping, which affects 19 police forces. However, if there is good news about damping, there would be concern that that may be counteracted by pension costs. Is my hon. Friend able to say anything about that?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend has been tireless in making the case for more funding for Bedfordshire police, and I am working hard with my colleagues at the Treasury and with officials to look again at the 2019-20 funding settlement as an opportunity to find a solution to the pensions issue. However, the path that we set this time last year has meant that almost every police force in the country is now recruiting additional officers, which is what we and the public we serve want.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Affairs Committee’s recent report pointed out that recorded crime has gone up by around a third, but the number of charges and arrests is down by a quarter, which reflects the real challenges that the police face. The Budget provided no additional money for mainstream policing across the country, and police chiefs are warning about a potential reduction in the number of police officers of 10,000 if additional money for pensions is not provided. What does the Minister have to say, not to MPs, but to those chief constables about their warnings? Will he provide extra pension money in the settlement before Christmas?

Nick Hurd: I hope that the right hon. Lady welcomed the news in the Budget about additional money for counter-terrorism policing and, crucially, for mental health. Through the work of the Home Affairs Committee and the many conversations that we have had with the police, she will know about the mental health demand on our police system, and that additional money must work to reduce demand on our police.
Given the right hon. Lady’s experience as a former Secretary of State, she will also know that the Budget is not where local police money is allocated. It is settled in the police funding settlement, and as the Chancellor and I have made clear, that deal is not settled. Work is ongoing between the Home Office and the Treasury to look again at what I indicated last year, and I will come to the House in early in December with the results of that work.

William Wragg: I give my hon. Friend every support in his negotiations with the Treasury. In addition to using reserves, funds must be found for pension liability above and beyond an increase to the police grant in December so that frontline officer numbers can rise.

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive intervention. We share a desire to continue down the path we set, and as a result of the action that we have taken, almost every single police force in the country is now recruiting additional officers. We do not want to go backwards. We must solve the pension issue, and we are working closely with our Treasury colleagues to do just that.

George Howarth: The Minister will be aware that the pension issue comes at a time that is not without problems that already exist. My constituency has seen an alarming rise in gun and knife crime, and a bus service was withdrawn last week after hooligans threw bricks at buses. The Minister needs to resolve the situation quickly; otherwise we run the risk of losing control of the streets.

Nick Hurd: I will resist any such scaremongering on this issue, but I do not need any lectures about the demand and pressures on the police following my conversations with all ranks of police leadership and with Members from both sides of the House. We are all in the same place, and even the Chancellor recognised here at the Dispatch Box the pressures on the police. We are trying to structure the right response to those pressures, and we are doing so from a position of growing economic confidence, which is in stark contrast to what the situation would be if Labour was in power.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Let us see whether we can get everyone in by 1.15 pm, which is when we need to move on.

Jeremy Lefroy: I fully support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). Will the Minister assure us that he will look carefully to ensure that the promised increases in police officers in Staffordshire and elsewhere are taken forward, because council taxpayers were promised that back in April?

Nick Hurd: I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point. If elected representatives have made commitments to their public, I quite understand the need to stand by them—we all do. As I said, the steps that I took last year, both in the 2018-19 funding settlement and what  I indicated for 2019-20, have resulted in exactly what I wanted, which is that police and crime commissioners up and down the country are starting to recruit again. I want that to continue.

Melanie Onn: Humberside’s police and crime commissioner has delved into reserves to mitigate the loss of 440 police officers over the past eight years. He has just recruited an extra 250 police officers. To how many of those should he hand a P45?

Nick Hurd: To be honest, I am delighted that reserves are being put to good use because, in March 2018, Humberside was sitting on £28.9 million of public money, almost 17% of its annual budget. One of the things the Government have done is to force PCCs to be more transparent about their use of reserves, and I do not resile from that at all. I stress again that we recognise the problem, and there is determination and extremely hard work between the Treasury and the Home Office to find a solution in the police funding settlement in early December.

Philip Hollobone: Police finances are incredibly stretched. Dumping £165 million of pension liabilities will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I offer the Minister my 100% support in getting the Treasury to think again.

Nick Hurd: I am grateful, as always, for my hon. Friend’s support. He knows from our previous exchanges that the Government recognise there is a problem in how stretched the police system is, and we took steps last year that led to more money going into the system, which is welcome, even though it was opposed by Labour. He knows my determination to find a solution not just for the pensions issue but for the stretch on the police. There is a need to increase police capacity.

Ellie Reeves: In my constituency, a 15-year-old child, Jay Hughes, was murdered on Thursday, another tragic victim of knife crime. Then, on Sunday, another young man was stabbed to death in Anerley, just metres from where teenager Michael Jonas was killed last year. This is a crisis. When so many lives are being lost on the streets of London, surely we should be funding the Met properly, not cutting its budget. When will the Government put in place a proper plan to protect our communities? I listened to the Minister’s answer to the urgent question with dismay. What does he have to say to the families affected by these senseless killings?

Nick Hurd: What I have to say to the families, and I speak as a London MP, is that the whole country and the whole Government are absolutely appalled and shocked by what is happening on the streets of London. It is not just a London issue, as the hon. Lady well knows; it is a national challenge. We are absolutely serious about getting on top of this, and she will know that we have been here before, 10 years ago, at a time when the public finances were in a completely different place and when people were not asking, “Where are the police?” This is long-term, complex work, and we have to bear down on it.
The hon. Lady asked about funding for the Met police, and there is an additional £100 million going into the Met this year as a result of actions that we and the Mayor are taking. London has over one and a half times the national average for funding per head of population and for police officers per head of population.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: As he is a distinguished former broadcaster, I am sure the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) can demonstrate his mastery of the one-short-sentence question.

Julian Knight: It is reasonable to make extra provision, but can something also be done about the Labour West Midlands police and crime commissioner sitting on £100 million in reserves?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Across the police system, reserves have grown by hundreds of millions of pounds since 2011, at a time when all the public were hearing from the police system was, “We need more money.” One of the things we have done is to say, “Yes, you need reserves, but you need to account for how big those reserves are and what you intend to do with them.” That goes for the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, who has, I think, increased reserves by £20 million.

Edward Davey: Police chiefs say that filling this pension deficit could cost up to 10,000 police officers. Does the Minister agree?

Nick Hurd: No, I do not. I think the number is exaggerated, which is not unusual for the police. I recognise that there is an unbudgeted cost, and I have given an undertaking to work very closely with the Treasury and with the Home Secretary to find a solution to both this and  the additional resources and capacity needed to meet the very real demand pressures on the police.

Huw Merriman: With Sussex police having welcomed 150 extra staff at the end of October, funded by council tax increases, will my right hon. Friend work with me and Katy Bourne to ensure that the police force has all the resources at its disposal to carry on increasing police numbers?

Nick Hurd: The public’s safety is the priority of this Government. We have made clear the priority we attach to police funding, and the Home Secretary has made his priority clear personally. We are absolutely determined to make sure the police have the resources they need. As we heard the Chancellor say in answer to questions before this, we are in an increasingly strong position because of the recovery of the economy, and austerity is ending, which means that the Conservatives, uniquely as a party, can take these steps—that is in stark contrast to the fiscally incredible Labour party.

David Hanson: The Government Red Book says there will be £10.8 billion for the Home Office this year and £10.7 billion for it next year—that is £100 million less. Is the Minister going to revise that figure, or is he going to take that money from somewhere else?

Nick Hurd: As I have made clear, the next step in Parliament debating and discussing police funding is the 2019-20 funding settlement. As I did last year, I intend to come the House in early December to set out this Government’s proposals, which are being worked through with our Treasury colleagues as we speak.

Kevin Foster: The Minister will be aware that not all the demand on the police is based on crime. What work will he be doing with police and crime commissioners, including Devon and Cornwall’s, to look at how that can be used to help release more resources for fighting crime?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Anyone who speaks to the police finds a consistent message from across the system: a growing frustration about the amount of time our police are spending supporting people on mental health issues—the estimate across the system is at least 25%. Some of that I would class as core policing but some of it is not, so we are working with PCCs to get the evidence base and establish what is good practice in terms of triaging some of this demand. Part of what I welcome in the Budget is the additional investment that this Government can now make in local mental health, and I am determined to ensure that one dividend from that investment is reduced demand on policing.

Mohammad Yasin: In the past five weeks, three youths were stabbed, two fatally, and one 20-year-old man was shot dead in Bedford. Will the Minister support the bid from Bedfordshire’s police chief constable and the PCC for emergency extra funding from the police special grant before another young person is killed on our streets?

Nick Hurd: I was delighted to see the hon. Gentleman take part in the cross-sector summit we had on serious violence in Bedfordshire. What I said then was clear: we have received an application for exceptional funding and we expect to take a decision on that by the middle of the month. Our ability to meet that comes from the fact that we increased the contingency pot available in the Home Office for those situations, in a funding settlement that he and other Labour MPs voted against.

Maggie Throup: Just last Friday, I was out and about with the police in Long Eaton in my constituency, along with the Minister. Will he reassure me that resources will be provided to continue the vital work we saw at first hand being carried out in my constituency?

Nick Hurd: I know my hon. Friend thoroughly enjoyed her visit, and I repeat what I have said to other colleagues: we are taking steps in the right direction. The right direction is providing the resources for our police forces to increase their capacity and continue the process of recruiting the additional officers that we and the public want to see. We can do that because we are in a stronger economic position. My intention is to come to the House with the funding settlement in early December to update the House on our plans for next year.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: The House will have noticed that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has perambulated. He was over there!

Nick Smith: I am trying to get your attention, Mr Speaker. What does the Minister suggest Gwent police do: cut 100 police officer jobs or make local precept payers make up the difference?

Nick Hurd: Gwent was the first police force I visited, and I am well aware of some of the pressures on the force and some of the excellent work it is doing, not least in pursuing exploiters of children. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that Gwent is absolutely the outlier  in the reserves it holds; it sits on £56 million-worth of public money as reserves, which is a stunning 46.3% of its funding. I think the people of Gwent deserve a clear explanation of how that public money is going to be used to support their local police service.

Martin Vickers: The Minister will be aware that Humberside police have recruited more than 200 officers over the past couple of years. A threat to further recruitment or to our police community support officers due to increased pension contributions is now a real possibility. Will he assure me that he will work with me and other colleagues in the force area to ensure that that recruitment is not threatened?

Nick Hurd: I do not want to do anything that jeopardises the recruitment of police officers and the progress that we are making in that context—I have made that very clear. I have also made it clear that it is my intention to work very closely with colleagues from all parts of the House to make sure that we have a proper understanding of what is going on force by force. My main point is that we are able to make progress because of the progress that we are making on the economy, and that is progress that would be jeopardised by the Labour party.

Phil Wilson: The number of police officers in Durham has been cut by 400 since 2010. That is not an exaggeration; that is a fact. These changes to the pension mean that another 30 officers will have to go and that there will have to be an increase in the precept by £12 for homes in band D. Will that not be perceived as a local tax for the Treasury and as incompetence by the Treasury?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity again to place on the record the admiration of the Government for the performance of Durham police, which is an outstanding force. Against the context of reduced resources, they show what it is possible to achieve. I understand the point he is making and I return to what I was saying, which is that we are working through the issue and I will come back to the House in early December with what I hope will be a solution.

Vicky Ford: In Essex, 150 additional officers are making a real difference in the fight against crime. Will the Minister work with the Treasury and reassure our excellent police, crime and fire commissioner, Roger Hirst, that this actuarial change to pension liabilities will not hit our frontline policing?

Nick Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend will share the determination of the Government to do the right thing by public pensions and to make sure that they are properly funded. What the Treasury is doing is as a result of independent advice, and its approach is the right one, but there is a recognition of the difficulty that this causes the police at a time when things are already difficult and demanding. I made some comments earlier about possible exaggeration on their part of the problem. I should be more cautious, because there is a very real issue of stretch on police; I just do not happen to believe that there is the loss of officer numbers that they have indicated, not least because I am working very closely to find a solution to that. My hon. Friend can be  assured that we at the Home Office, working closely with the Treasury, are determined to find a solution to this and to come to the House in early December with a police funding settlement that allows us to continue on the track of making sure that our police have the resources that they need in Essex and elsewhere.

Dan Carden: I am quite frankly amazed by the language that the Minister is using and by the fact that he told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to be careful about what she says. No one in my constituency is telling me to be careful about what I say about knife, gun and gang crime being on the rise. Will he accept that with Liverpool and Merseyside police there are special cases with problems of organised and gang crime, and agree that they will not lose any more money through this Government’s incompetence?

Nick Hurd: I absolutely recognise the spike in serious violence that we are dealing with; it is an unbelievably serious problem that applies not just to London but nationally, and the Government are responding to it. I have one note of caution. It is not my business to give lectures to the Opposition, but the reality is that I have sat here with Labour MPs who, session after session, pop up and down demanding more and more money for policing, but actually, in the Labour manifesto, the shadow Front-Bench team committed £300 million additional funding to the police, which has been increased by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley to £780 million over this Parliament, whereas this Government have taken steps to put £460 million into the system in this year alone.

Bob Blackman: From my discussions with frontline police, I know that the one thing they value above all else is the protection of their pensions. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, in discussions about funding, the pension for frontline police officers is fully protected?

Nick Hurd: Yes, and that is absolutely the underlying motivation of what the Treasury has announced.

Ruth George: The police pension deficit is in no small part due to this Government’s policies of forcing experienced officers into early retirement and reducing the number of current serving officers by 21,000. Should the Government not shoulder the responsibility for the impact on the contributions that are required?

Nick Hurd: No, the proposed adjustments to the discount rates are independent advice based on adjustments to projected growth rates of the economy—growth rates that I would hope will be significantly higher than they would under a Labour Government.

Craig Tracey: This is  an issue that I have discussed with both my police  and crime commissioner and my chief constable. Understandably, there is some concern. Will the Minister reassure them that he will work closely with police forces to fully understand the impact that this change will have and take any action necessary to protect vital frontline services?

Nick Hurd: I fully give that undertaking. We are working very closely with the chiefs and the police and crime commissioners to understand the implications, force by force, so that we get a real sense of the impact, rather than the one dominating the headlines. I can also give the assurance, as I have repeatedly today, that we are working closely with colleagues in the Treasury to find a solution. I look forward to coming to the House in early December with the result of that work.

Paula Sherriff: Owing to Government cuts, in West Yorkshire we have nearly 1,000 fewer uniformed police officers on our streets. As a former police employee for a decade, I know at first hand the impact that this is having on our communities. Will the Minister reassure me that there will be no further cuts to police numbers in Dewsbury and West Yorkshire?

Nick Hurd: I have been very clear that what I set out last year enabled police forces up and down the country to start recruiting officers again, and I want that to continue. I ask the hon. Lady to support us in holding the PCC to account for holding £72.7 million of public money—almost 18% of funding—in reserves. I am sure that her constituents will want to know how that money is going to be spent to benefit the local force.

Pat McFadden: West Midlands police estimate that, if these changes go ahead in their current form, they will cost the force more than £22 million over the next two years, and the loss of hundreds of officers on top of the 2,000 who have already gone since 2010. The reserves that have been mentioned are already being used to fund current spending and will disappear by 2020. Does the Minister agree that it would be intolerable for the public to have to put up with the loss of hundreds more officers?

Nick Hurd: I have engaged closely with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner and the chief constable about some of the challenges facing the force, and these are real. They know that it is my intention to work through the issue and come to the House in early December with a funding settlement that works. We are working very closely with the police to build the evidence base for the Treasury’s comprehensive spending review, which the right hon. Gentleman knows is a major event in shaping police budgets for the next few years.

Vicky Foxcroft: Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), I want to share a local teacher’s perspective on the losses:
“Last night I got that call that no one prepares you for…I’d just got home…it was just after seven and my own children were in the bath, ‘Sorry to bother you at home but can you talk?’ my headteacher on the other end of the line, her voice breaking in that way a person’s voice breaks slightly when they are trying their very best to remain strong even though all they want to do is cry. All I heard was ‘multiple...stabbing...murder scene...and the name Jai.’ This was a boy who I had known from the age of 8 and was now 15 and fighting for his life. An hour and a half later I heard the words ‘I’m really sorry but he’s gone.’ I broke down and cried. All I thought was how could this have happened?”
When can we talk about addressing knife crime and the Government’s public health approach?

Nick Hurd: These are terrible losses; each represents a young life cut terribly short. The hon. Lady knows as well as anyone in this House the devastating impact of these losses on friends, families and the broader community. This issue is one of the biggest challenges that we face as a Government and as a society, and everyone has a role to play in addressing it, not least teachers.
I salute the hon. Lady’s work and leadership on this matter. She will know from that work that there is no straightforward solution. This is long-term, complex work that requires robust policing and proactive, persistent investment in prevention and early intervention work to steer young people away from that life, those choices and the devastating consequences. I hope that she knows that whatever happens, the Government are absolutely committed to working with partners from both sides of the House and all parts of society to bear down on this problem. We have to end this terrible cycle of violence, but it will be long-term work.

Bill Esterson: Right across Merseyside, we have similar stories to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). Some 1,600 police staff have gone through Government cuts since 2010. If not funded, this proposal will cost another 300 police officers. Our PCC, Jane Kennedy, talks of these cuts swinging a “wrecking ball” through her budget. She is right to say so, isn’t she?

Nick Hurd: I spoke to Jane about this yesterday, when she and other PCCs were in the Home Office talking about the serious violence strategy. She was very clear, as she always is, about the pressures on Merseyside police. It is a consistent refrain across the system. I am very, very aware of it. That is why I took the steps I took last year. They were small steps but they were steps in the right direction. I intend to come to the House again in early December with the next stage in this journey, which is the 2019-20 funding settlement.

Matthew Pennycook: Will the Minister confirm that, alongside the cuts that will fall on police, our fire services are also liable for costs in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds? What is he going to do about that?

Nick Hurd: As I said in my statement, this issue affects all public services. We are in conversations with the fire services, as we are with the police. Their funding settlement is in a different cycle from the police, and we will address it in the next CSR.

Stephen Morgan: Despite our having lost 1,000 police officers already, the Home Secretary’s plan means that another 350 jobs are under threat in Hampshire. Did the Minister really think that we would not notice this cut in disguise? How many more police officers will be cut in Portsmouth?

Nick Hurd: There is a suggestion from Labour Members that there is some sort of stealth arrangement around this position from the Treasury. That could not be further from the truth. It was signalled very explicitly in the 2016 Budget. What has changed is the discount rate applied, and that is the result of independent advice. I repeat what I have said. I have been to Portsmouth, at  the hon. Gentleman’s request, and had many conversations with Hampshire police. They are doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances, and I am determined to do what I can to make sure that they have the resources available for them to continue to recruit more officers.

Liz Twist: Northumbria police have already had budget cuts of over £140 million and lost 1,000 staff. If this goes through, the cost of £11 million over two years could equate to 220 officers lost. Can the Minister assure me and other Members that a way will be found to ensure that this cost is met?

Nick Hurd: Labour MPs, for reasons I understand, keeping popping up talking about cuts. They always ignore the fact that additional money has gone into the police system this year, with millions of pounds more going to Northumbria police—voted against, for reasons I continue not to understand, by the hon. Lady and others. The Government are extremely aware of the pressures on the police system. Another £460 million has gone into that system this year. I will come back to the House in a few weeks’ time with our proposals for next year. Meanwhile, we work very closely with the police to make a case at the next spending review for the next stages of resources that our police system needs.

Adrian Bailey: In the west midlands, murders are up by 33% in the last year and violent crime is up by 20%. Only last week, I went out on patrol with police in the west midlands, and I found that dedicated, devoted public servants are getting desperate because of the lack of support and resources. These cuts will make their position even worse and more demoralising. Will the Minister impress on the Treasury that the cost to the community and, in the long term, to the Treasury, will be far greater if it does not meet these costs?

Nick Hurd: Again, the hon. Gentleman talks about cuts when his force has received additional investment of £9.9 million in a settlement that he voted against. I repeat what I said. I am aware of the demand on the West Midlands police. I am aware that this is an unfunded cost. I am aware that we have to find a solution for it, and that is what I am doing, together with my colleagues at the Treasury.

Gareth Thomas: The Minister knows that violent crime is up in our borough and police numbers are substantially down. When does he expect those trends to reverse?

Nick Hurd: As I have already signalled, the battle against violent crime and the determination we have to bear down on it is long-term work. We were in a similar place 10 years ago, and it took time to bear down on it then, but we know what works, and that is what we are applying.
In relation to the Met police, there is, as I said, an additional £100 million going into the Met this year. They are recruiting hundreds more officers at the moment, and the Met has over one and a half times the national average in terms of police officers per head. It is a stretched force, and a force that we ask to do a great deal. But, again, I hope to come back to the House in early December with our plans for next year.

ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT UNITS: VULNERABLE PEOPLE

Barbara Keeley: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the long-term seclusion and deaths of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in assessment and treatment units.

Caroline Dinenage: I want to address the care that the NHS and social care system gives to some of the most vulnerable in our society. The millions of people who work in the NHS and social care do so every day with compassion and commitment to care for us all, but sometimes the system gets in the way, and when we see that, it is our task and our duty to change it. That is the case with the care given to people with some of the most significant and complex needs, such as those with learning disabilities and autism who are in-patients in assessment and treatment units and other mental health in-patient settings across the country. The care received by some of the people with the most significant needs quite simply is unacceptable.
With respect to in-patient care in assessment and treatment units and other in-patient settings, I absolutely share Members’ concerns about reported deaths, and I want to restate my Department’s commitment to reducing the number of preventable deaths among people with a learning disability. NHS England is ensuring that relevant investigatory processes have been followed in respect of each and every one of the cases it has responsibility for, and it is seeking assurance from all relevant clinical commissioning groups that they too have ensured appropriate investigation. As it stands, there is no indication that any of the deaths were untoward or that due process was not followed in every single case, but we are double-checking each and every one.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned seclusion. Like everyone in the House, I have been incredibly moved by reports of the care for Bethany and by the dignity of her dad, Jeremy, who has described the daily battle he has fought to get her the best possible care. It is completely unacceptable for seclusion to be used in this way. Restrictive practices must only ever be used as a last resort, and we must strive to totally eliminate them. With that in mind, the Secretary of State has instituted a serious incident review in Bethany’s case, and we will act to ensure that she gets the best possible care for her.
However, this is not just about individual cases; it is about the system. Three years ago, the Government committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities or autism detained in mental health hospitals by at least a third. The latest information we have shows that the number is down by around 20%, but that is not nearly enough. Today, 2,315 people with a learning disability and/or autism in England are held in mental health hospitals. I want to see that number drastically reduced, and in the first instance I want us to meet the target of reduction by a third. I want to see everyone who can be cared for with their family living as normal a life as possible.
The Secretary of State has instituted a wide-ranging review into the inappropriate use of prolonged seclusion and long-term segregation as restrictive practices. He has asked the Care Quality Commission to initiate that review immediately, and it will be undertaken in two stages. Furthermore, he has asked the NHS to address this issue in the long-term plan that it is writing for the future of the NHS, and I know that NHS leadership shares our passion to get this right. We will also address the role of local authorities in the social care Green Paper, and both of those will be published before Christmas.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I remind the House that this question must finish no later than 1.45 pm, and if people have not got in by then, I am afraid that it is too bad.

Barbara Keeley: I want to put on record my disappointment that the Secretary of State tried to shoehorn an issue of this severity into an NHS policy announcement yesterday, and my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question.
The treatment of people with autism and learning disabilities in assessment and treatment units is nothing short of a national scandal. Six years ago, these units were described by the then chief executive of NHS England and the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission as a model of care that has
“no place in the 21st century”.
Seven years after the Winterbourne View scandal, the Government have not rid the country of these units or substantially cut their use. Indeed, as the Minister said, there are still 2,315 people in assessment and treatment units, including 230 children, and the number of under-18s has been increasing.
A Sky News investigation last week revealed that, since 2015, at least 40 people with a learning disability or autism have died while in assessment and treatment units, and nine of those who died were aged 35 or under. Some of the country’s most vulnerable people are being exposed to physical abuse in institutions that the chief inspector of mental health services described as being
“in danger of developing the same characteristics that Winterbourne View did.”
Can the Minister tell us why the NHS is still sanctioning the use of settings that expose thousands of vulnerable people to abuse, at a cost of half a billion pounds, despite the Government pledging to close them?
The transforming care programme has manifestly failed. What are the Government going to do to ensure funding is available for cash-strapped local councils to pay for community placements with care support for autistic people and people with a learning disability? The Times has revealed that the private companies running these units are making millions of pounds out of detaining vulnerable people in unsafe facilities, in one case funnelling £25 million into a secret bank account in Belize. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to immediately stop private companies that have a vested interest in keeping people with learning disabilities in these Bedlam-like conditions from doing that?
On Saturday, as the Minister has outlined, the Secretary of State ordered the Care Quality Commission to undertake a thematic review of assessment and treatment units, and he has ordered a serious incident review in the case of one young autistic woman, Bethany. Reviews are not urgent action, there are very many Bethanys trapped in seclusion, and 40 people have died in these units. Will the Minister tell us the timetable for the completion and publication of the CQC review and what urgent action can be taken to free all the young people and adults trapped in these appalling conditions?

Caroline Dinenage: Hon. Members will be very aware of and concerned about the report published this week by University College London. As the hon. Lady said, the report, which was commissioned by the NHS, draws attention to how people with learning disabilities die on average 15 to 20 years sooner than the general population, often for reasons that are not an inevitable consequence of any underlying medical condition. I was reassured that this report shows that programmes and opportunities that Government are putting in place to improve outcomes for people with learning disabilities and autism are addressing some of the concerns. However, I share very strongly her views and the views of this report that there is still much further to go and that now is the time to take action.
As hon. Members will know, the LeDeR report—the learning disabilities mortality review—is looking into the deaths of all people with a learning disability. It published its second annual report in May and in their response in September the Government accepted all the recommendations and included detailed actions for implementing them. NHS England has also committed that the long-term plan for the NHS will include learning disability and autism as one of the four clinical priorities. The long-term plan will also set out the future of the transforming care programme, which the hon. Lady raised.
Government policy on restrictive practices, including seclusion, is to reduce their use. Where such interventions have to be used, they must be a last resort and the intervention should always be represented as the least restrictive option to meet immediate needs. Incidents of restrictive intervention are recorded in the mental health services dataset and this data is published. The Mental Health Act code of practice highlights the particularly adverse impact of seclusion on children and young people. It advises careful assessment and periodic reviews.
I want to turn to the Care Quality Commission review into the inappropriate use of prolonged seclusion and long-term segregation. The first stage of the review will focus on settings that relate most closely to Bethany’s circumstances, focusing on people of all ages receiving care on NHS and independent sector wards for people with learning disabilities and/or autism and on child and adolescent mental health wards. That will start immediately and this stage will report in May next year. It is very important that service users, their families and people with lived experience are able to contribute to that. The second stage will report in the winter and will examine other settings in which segregation and prolonged seclusion are used. That stage will include NHS and independent sector mental health rehabilitation wards  and low secure mental health wards for people of all ages, as well as residential care homes designated for the care of people with learning difficulties and/or autism. As I have said, individuals who have been subject to segregation and/or long-term seclusion and their families and carers will be invited to provide evidence, including through interviews. The Care Quality Commission will make recommendations at the end of both stages, which will seek to eliminate system-wide inappropriate use of prolonged seclusion and long-term segregation, and ensure that vulnerable adults and children supported by health and social care are accorded the best possible care.
I should point out that not all the numbers that the hon. Lady spoke about are in separately identified assessment and treatment units. The data reports there being 2,315 in-patients with a learning disability and/or autism in mental health in-patient settings as of September, but some 360 of them were in in-patient settings described as for people with acute learning disabilities
It is important that commissioners should be able to access very high-quality, value-for-money care in their local area, whichever organisation provides it. We recognise the concern that people have expressed about what happens in the transforming care process, but I see it very much as a process and not as an event that will continue. The NHS has transferred more than £50 million to ensure that the right care is put in place in respect of community support, so that people are better cared for when they are out in the community.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the Minister accept that, fundamentally, far too many people are ending up in terrible conditions in secure settings because of the inadequacy of social care? Will she commit to include in the Green Paper, which is to be brought forward before Christmas, the Green Paper for young adults as well as for older people? Will she absolutely commit to that coming forward before Christmas?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise that the cases in which people end up in a long-term residential setting often reveal a failure of joint working—of the wraparound services that people need to keep them in the community. We are looking at working-age adults as part of the social care Green Paper, and it will be published before Christmas.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that I chair the autism commission, which has been looking at health and fake medicine—some serious reports. Will she expand her vision? There is obviously something seriously wrong in the justice system and the fact that police are not trained to recognise and understand someone on the autism spectrum. We need Health and Justice to look into the issue thoroughly, because something is going wrong. We need to train people, and to train them now.

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: training is fundamental. We have already accepted the LeDeR review’s recommendation that all health and social care staff should have mandatory training on how to care for people with learning disabilities and autism. I would very much like to see that sort of training spread more widely out into society.

Philip Hollobone: Why has the number of children detained in assessment and treatment units more than doubled in the past three years, from 110 to 230?

Caroline Dinenage: That is a really good question. We are looking carefully at how we can support children much better so that they do not go into these sorts of units at all. As I say, it is about the wraparound services that can identify much earlier somebody who might be at a crisis point, and making sure that the care and support is put in place to prevent people from having to be admitted to units of this kind.

Norman Lamb: Does the Minister agree that the Care Quality Commission needs to look into the endemic use of force in these institutions, as well as at the use of exclusion? Does she agree that unless and until we find a mechanism to transfer money from spending in these institutions to support in the community, we will never solve this problem?

Caroline Dinenage: The right hon. Gentleman has done so much work on this issue and cares about it intensely. NHS England has transferred more than £50 million, up front, so that clinical commissioning groups that are planning to close beds can start to provide the community provision that is crucial to keeping people well in the community and out of residential settings.

Norman Lamb: And use of force?

Caroline Dinenage: We are absolutely clear that force should not be used at all.

Andrew Bowie: Learning disabilities and autism are no respecters of “devolved” or “reserved”, so will the Minister join me in calling for NHS Scotland and NHS England to work more closely together, pooling resources and expertise, so that all patients needing in-patient care across the United Kingdom can receive the best possible care?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes. I think this speaks to the whole theme of people working together, communicating, collaborating, and putting the care that is needed in place for people when they need it. The ability to work across borders is fundamental to that.

Luciana Berger: It was over seven years ago that we came to this House to reflect on the incredibly disturbing “Panorama” footage of what happened at Winterbourne View. We have had countless statements in this House. I obtained an urgent question about this two years ago. We have seen data about the deaths that have occurred, and the fact that the numbers have not reduced. I would echo the question asked by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). The number of children in these units has doubled in the period in which the Government told us they would reduce the number by 50%. It is, frankly, a dereliction of duty, and the Ministers should be apologising to the people outside this House, in this country, who are detained in those assessment and treatment units.
Can the Minister tell us categorically, and actually answer the question—why has the number of children in these units doubled, and what exactly are she and her Government going to do to ensure that she meets their target of reducing it by 50% by next March?

Caroline Dinenage: I do not see this as a dereliction of duty. I think of the fact that the Secretary of State has triggered a serious incident review into Bethany’s case, that more broadly there is this thematic review, and that we are building the right support by means of the ongoing transforming care process. There is a meeting today, which I have not been able to attend because I had to be here, between all stakeholders in this area, but also with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, so that we can work together to ensure that children, above all, are protected.

Anna Soubry: I welcomed the Secretary of State’s words yesterday, when he made it very clear that he understands that the situation now needs urgent action. My constituent’s daughter died at the age of 25, having been sectioned, living in a padded cell; her weight rose to 26 stone when she was apparently being cared for. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just about money and how we can better spend it; it is about the involvement of families, and a profound cultural change as well?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that the setting she describes that her constituent was in has now been shut, but the point is well made, and actually it is not just about keeping people safe; it is about treating them with dignity and respect, and providing care that is compassionate.

Helen Hayes: Several months ago, the Minister met my constituent Isabelle Garnett, whose son Matthew became seriously unwell as a consequence of the treatment he received at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton, where Bethany is also receiving such appalling treatment. Matthew’s parents were so worried about his health in St Andrew’s that they thought he would die there. He suffered a broken arm, bruises and other injuries and lost a catastrophic amount of weight.
Matthew is now, thankfully, thriving in a community setting, at significantly less cost than the £12,000 a week that the NHS was spending on completely inappropriate care at St Andrew’s. St Andrew’s is not a fit for purpose location for young people with autism and learning disability. Despite the testimony of Isabelle and many parents like her, why have hospitals like St Andrew’s been allowed to expand, while there has been no expansion of the type of entirely appropriate community provision that is needed?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady brought Matthew’s mum to meet me and I was very disturbed by the photographs she showed me of how poorly he looked when he was in the St Andrew’s setting, and how much happier and so much better he looks now that he is in the right kind of community provision. It speaks volumes about exactly what we are trying to achieve—to get people out of such settings into the right kind of community provision. That is what this is about,  but people can only be moved out of settings like St Andrew’s—which is a place that does require improvement—about which the Care Quality Commission is concerned, when the right provision is available in the community. That is why we are putting the money through NHS England into local provision.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent request to the CQC for an immediate review; it is very timely. Can the Minister assure the House, however, that the Government and the NHS are prepared to hear the uncomfortable truth, and change to find the right and compassionate care for those with autism and those with learning difficulties?

Caroline Dinenage: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which gets to the root of the issue. It is not enough to ask people what they think and set up commissions and reviews; we have to listen to what people are saying but then we have to act. The thematic review the CQC is starting straight away is reporting back in two phases. That is important as it means that, as soon as the first phase comes back, we can start action straight away.

Liz McInnes: Can the Minister say what resources will be made available to local councils to enable people with learning disabilities and autism to move out of the units as a matter of urgency and into community placements?

Caroline Dinenage: NHS England transferred over £50 million up front to CCGs that are closing beds over the course of the financial year, so that they can invest in community alternatives. In addition, between 2015 and March 2019 it will invest another £50 million in transforming funding to put in place things such as the much needed crisis prevention teams, which are focused on supporting children in the community.

Kevin Foster: The number of people with learning disabilities and autism in secure mental health hospitals is unacceptable and I welcome the commitment to reduce it. Can the Minister confirm exactly how she will monitor that and keep the House updated on progress?

Caroline Dinenage: That is the thrust of the whole transforming care and building the right support programme. We know that in some cases during the course of the programme people who have left residential units and gone into the community have gone back in to the units again. We have to keep a very close eye on the figures and ensure that the right package of support and care is provided so that once people leave a secure unit and go into the community, they are able to stay there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The sitting is suspended until 3.15 pm, so that Members can attend the Remembrance service in St Margaret’s Church.
Sitting suspended for the Armistice centenary commemoration.

Child Maintenance

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Marion Fellows: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain fees for child maintenance services; to make provision about the calculation of child maintenance payments; and for connected purposes.
I thank the co-sponsors of the Bill for their support. I also thank a number of Members who have introduced their own Private Members’ Bills to reform and improve the Child Maintenance Service, including the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is to be commended on the work that she is doing to improve the CMS system.
I have been approached by numerous constituents asking for help with their CMS cases, as many other Members will have been. I have been approached both by parents with care and by non-resident parents. It is clear that the CMS does not function properly in its current form. In other words, it is letting down the children who should be at the heart of what it does. We have a duty to provide a system that respects the rights and obligations of both parents, but, ultimately, the rights and interests of children are paramount, and, sadly, I do not believe that the CMS meets that fundamental goal.
There are four specific ways in which the CMS could be improved in order to fulfil its intended purpose, and the aim of my Bill is to enact them. The 4% maintenance levy on parents requiring the collect-and-pay service should be abolished, as should the £20 application fee. There should be a reduction from 25% to 10% in the change-in-income threshold that must be breached for maintenance payments to be recalculated. Finally, the value of any equity in the non-resident parent’s primary residence should be included in maintenance calculations when it exceeds £500,000.
The Child Maintenance Service is there to help when parents cannot agree on child maintenance. It is supposed to be a public service that ensures that parents meet their responsibilities to their children, especially when they may not want to. I do not think anyone here thinks that a parent should not pay for their child, but believe me, there are parents out there who do not believe that they should—parents who attempt to duck and dive their way out of paying a single penny towards their child, because they perceive every payment as a payment towards their ex-partner.
Whatever reason a non-resident parent has for not paying, they should not be allowed to renege on their responsibilities, but most of all, their child should not pay the price. Currently, if a non-resident parent fails to make full and timely maintenance payments that the CMS has calculated on their behalf, the case will move to collect and pay. The CMS will then chase down the non-paying non-resident parent and collect maintenance on the receiving parent’s behalf. Parents with care—and therefore their children—then incur a maintenance tax of 4% on all payments collected. They are penalised for requiring the help of the CMS. They are charged because their ex-partner refuses to support their child. They are taxed through no fault of their own.
Using figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Library has estimated that in 2015-16 and 2016-17, £3.3 million was taken from families through the 4% maintenance tax. As a punishment, the non-paying non-resident parent will incur an additional 20% penalty and, potentially, other fines based on action such as a deduction from earnings order. How can it be justified that a child loses out because one of their parents will not meet the obligation to provide for them? The maintenance levy is not a tax on parents; it is a tax on children. It takes food from their table, clothes from their back, and money from their pockets that would allow them to enjoy the upbringing that every child should have.
The UK Government said in answer to a written question that the maintenance levy exists to encourage
“parents to make Direct Pay work where they can.”
The point of collect and pay is that all attempts have failed; parents have no choice but to turn to the CMS to collect the maintenance that their child is owed. It often feels as though the CMS is more intent on collecting payments to maintain itself than on maintaining the children whom it is supposed to serve. In the grand scheme of things, the collection of 4% charges is a pittance to the UK Government, but it could make a massive difference to children’s lives.
Likewise, the £20 application fee takes more money from families. It is most likely to be a parent with care who starts an application with the CMS because they have not been able to reach an agreement with their ex-partner. Again, they are being penalised for needing help in securing for their children the support they have a right to.
The Library estimates that in the past three years alone, the CMS has collected £4.8 million in application fees. That is money that could be spent on heating and eating, materials or clothes for school, or sports activities. Sadly, these are simple but common things that many families today struggle to afford. Single-parent families are more likely to be in poverty than couples. A £20 application fee is another barrier that blocks low-income families from accessing vital support, and it can deter them from applying. The CMS should be free at the point of use to meet a need. It should not use parents and children as clients, and as a source of income.
I do not want to paint all non-resident parents as negligent—most want to do well by their child—but the CMS is unfair not only to parents with care, but to non-resident parents. A paying parent can amend their income, and therefore their calculations, only if their income changes by more than 25%. That is a huge threshold to meet. It can disproportionately affect parents on low incomes if their income decreases, while disproportionately benefiting those on higher incomes.
A constituent of mine had a low income that decreased by 24.9% exactly; he was struggling to make ends meet, as the maintenance that he has to pay is still based on the higher income he previously earned. For many parents, this could be an income that they earned up to six years ago. My constituent still wanted to support his child, but at a rate he could afford. Likewise, parents with care have approached me for help as they know that their ex-partner earns far more than they did when they disclosed their earnings to the CMS, but because their change in income did not exceed the 25% threshold, those parents with care were left receiving a lower rate.
Ultimately, a lower threshold of 10% would ensure that maintenance payments more accurately reflected what a parent earned; maintenance calculations would therefore be more accurate, which would benefit parents and children. That would still be in keeping with the Government’s aim of ensuring both minimal administration and financial stability for the parent with care.
I welcome many of the steps that the UK Government are only beginning to take to ensure that parents pay their maintenance on time and in full. What was needed was not necessarily more powers, but rather a greater willingness for the CMS to use the powers it had. It is also important, however, that maintenance calculations be a true reflection of parents’ incomes. The private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire goes to great lengths to ensure that a person’s real worth is used in calculating their maintenance. The Government are introducing regulations that will take assets such as gold bullion into account, but we need to go further and take into account a person’s primary residence where there is equity in it of £500,000 or more. I do not know many people who have gold bullion lying about, but I do know people who own their home and have no mortgage or loan on it.
Homes are a major way in which a non-resident parent can increase their net worth, if their home increases in value. A £500,000 threshold will ensure that those who live in smaller homes do not face unreasonable additions to maintenance that may require them to sell their home. Only those who live in more expensive homes who can afford to pay will pay. The Conservative Government make a big deal about personal responsibility and families being self-reliant; now is their opportunity to show that they mean it with action, and to ensure that parents meet their responsibilities to their children.
The CMS is a public service, and it seems strange that parents are deterred from, and even charged for, accessing it when the cost to the public purse is so small and the benefits to children so large. With every pound collected under collect and pay, the UK Government are taking money that is rightfully the child’s. There has been recent progress on improving the CMS. I believe that the steps in my Bill will make a discernible difference to people’s lives—the life of the paying parent, the receiving parent and, ultimately, the child—and ensure that children have their rights respected and get the start in life that their parents owe them.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Marion Fellows, Neil Gray, Angela Crawley, Mhairi Black, Antoinette Sandbach, Liz Saville Roberts, Jim Shannon, Caroline Lucas, Alison Thewliss, Carol Monaghan, Sarah Champion and Carolyn Harris present the Bill.
Marion Fellows accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed (Bill 284).

Valerie Vaz: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who unfortunately cannot be here today, is a member of the shadow Work and Pensions team and she has been urgently seeking an accessible copy of the managed migration regulations that the Secretary of State for Working Pensions announced  yesterday. After numerous calls to the Department, my hon. Friend has finally been promised a copy on Friday. Mr Speaker, I am sure you would agree that that is unacceptable, and that a copy should have been made available in an accessible format immediately, from the moment of publication. It is vital that we should be representative of society as a whole, which means that such important Government publications should be provided in an accessible form on publication, rather than taking the best part of a working week to be provided. Can you advise me on how we can ensure that this document is made available immediately?

John Bercow: This is of course a matter for the occupants of the Treasury Bench, but my sense is that the hon. Lady has probably achieved, or will shortly achieve, her objective. She has aired the matter in the House, it has been heard by Ministers and it is on the record. The resources available to the Government are very considerable, and it is simply not acceptable that a Member of Parliament with a known additional need should not have that need, as near as possible, immediately satisfied. This was an entirely predictable request, and I hope that it will not be necessary for this matter to be aired again. I appreciate the fact that Ministers are nodding from a sedentary position on the Front Bench and I hope that the matter has been settled. I would be loth to have to pronounce on it again, and I rather imagine that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) would not want that either. She should be able to just get on with her job, suitably supported.

Alison Thewliss: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the past few days, residents in my constituency, and particularly in Pollokshields, have been plagued by fireworks being set off and used as weapons. I understand that injury has been caused to a child, and that fireworks have been aimed at police officers, as well as members of the public. Have you been given any indication, perhaps by Ministers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who have responsibility for fireworks, that they might make a statement or issue any guidance on this matter?

John Bercow: As of now, I have received no indication of any intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement to the House on this subject, or indeed to provide guidance. The former is something of which I would have expected to be notified; the latter, probably not. My advice to the hon. Lady, who is most dexterous and adroit in the use of parliamentary devices, is that if her wish remains unmet by the time the House returns next Monday, she should seek to draw the matter to the attention of the House then.

Centenary of the Armistice

John Bercow: Before I call the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to move the motion, I should advise the House that no fewer than 34 Back-Bench Members wish to contribute. I know that the Secretary of State and his shadow, with their usual and customary sensitivity, will wish to tailor their own contributions to take account of colleagues’ interest.

Jeremy Wright: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the centenary of the Armistice.
In May 1915, my grandfather arrived in France to fight for his country. Three years later, he came back. Millions of others did not or, if they did, came back terribly damaged, visibly or invisibly. They went to fight in what they knew as the great war: four years of blood, mud and misery in which humanity found new ways to kill and injure on a previously unimagined scale. When the cost and enormity of it could be better grasped, they came to call it, in shock, horror and, sadly, unrealistic optimism, the war to end all wars.
On Sunday, the nation will come together as one to pause and remember all those who died during this conflict and all those that have happened since. This year’s act of remembrance will be particularly special and poignant, however, as we mark the centenary of the end of the first world war. We have sought to commemorate the war in many ways over the past four years. For everyone, different events will stand out, but I will always remember the commemoration of the battle of Amiens at Amiens cathedral, which I was fortunate enough to attend. I sat in that magnificent cathedral with representatives of many countries that fought on both sides of the battles that marked the beginning of the end of the war, and I listened to the words of those who experienced them. Their emotions were deeply felt by those in the cathedral and, I am sure, by the millions watching on television and online.

Edward Leigh: I remember that I prepared a scrapbook of cuttings at the 50th anniversary for my grandfather who had fought in the first world war, but I was rather embarrassed in front of him because the coverage in the 1960s was relentlessly negative. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that historiography has now changed? Most people realise that it was a sacrifice worth making, that the alternative would have been militarism and that the soldiers were actually well led in 1918.

Jeremy Wright: It is undoubtedly right that the vast majority of people in this country will come together on Sunday, as they have come together on many occasions over the past four years, to remember the sacrifice of those who gave their lives and who did so without a thought to their own interests and in the service of their nation.

Jim Cunningham: Many Members will have had a family member who was involved in the first world war in one way or another, and some of us will have family memories of different battles. Like the Secretary of State’s grandfather, my grandfather took part in the battle of Loos, which is not  as well remembered as other battles. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should not forget such battles and the people who fought in them?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have not remembered every single battle over the past four years, but we have tried to remember a number of them. However, our collective effort to commemorate what happened is designed to encompass all battles and all those who fought in them.

Paula Sherriff: I thank the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way. In common with many other Members, I will be joining remembrance events in my constituency on Sunday. I understand that the event held at Mirfield is the biggest and most well attended outside of London, so will he join me in welcoming the people in Mirfield who attend that event?

Jeremy Wright: I join the hon. Lady in welcoming that occasion. I am sure that it will be a particularly special year for her and for all those who attend.
The high-profile ceremonial events that I mentioned have been complemented by an extensive and engaging programme of cultural and educational activities. In 2012, the Government established the 14-18 NOW cultural programme to work with artists to tell these important stories through the mediums of culture and art. There has been a particular focus on engaging children and young people, with events including the great war school debate series and school battlefield tours, in which nearly 6,000 students and teachers visited the battlefields of northern France.
The groundbreaking 14-18 NOW programme has used its remit to enthral people from all walks of live. More than 35 million people have engaged with the centenary, including 7.5 million young people under the age of 25. It has clearly demonstrated that contemporary artworks in public places can attract large, diverse audiences. Whether it was turning the country dark as part of the “lights out” programme or the ghost soldiers that appeared across the country to mark the centenary of the battle of the Somme, these events have all captured the public’s imagination and have given remembrance prominence in our daily lives.
The ceramic poppies at the Tower of London were another moving tribute, bringing the programme to one of our most popular and cherished attractions. The poppies have since travelled to 19 locations, from Belfast to Southend and from Orkney to Plymouth, and have been visited by more than 4 million people. From next year, they will be part of the collection of the Imperial War Museum, where they can be viewed for many years to come.
As part of our programme, we have sought to highlight the enormous contribution made by those who came to our nation’s aid from across the world. Some 2.5 million men and women from the Commonwealth answered the call to fight, with 200,000 laying down their lives. They left their homes thousands of miles away to serve the allied cause with unstinting bravery, often in unimaginable conditions, and they must not be forgotten or overlooked.
Works by an extraordinarily diverse range of artists from the UK and abroad have helped us to highlight those contributions. Poets from the Caribbean diaspora, visual artists from India and Bangladesh, performers  from South Africa, musicians from Syria and many more have all highlighted the global reach and impact of the war. That was shown vividly in March 2015, when an event commemorating the second battle of Neuve Chapelle took place at the Imperial War Museum North. The event was co-ordinated by British Muslim, Hindu and Sikh organisations, supported by the Government. It compellingly showed the partnerships and friendships that we hold so dear and that were so instrumental during the war.
We have seen all too well how history can divide, but one clear and ambitious goal throughout this centenary period has been to seek to use history to bring us together. The Government have worked closely with the Irish Government, for example, over the past four years to mark these events. That was most clearly demonstrated in the shared approach to the battle of Messines Ridge commemoration in June 2017, which was attended by both His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and the then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny. The battle has considerable historic and symbolic significance for the UK and Ireland, as it was the first time that the 36th (Ulster) and 16th (Irish) Divisions fought alongside each other during the great war. The event provided a valuable opportunity to remember the service and sacrifice of those who fought, as well as to explore our shared history and support efforts to build a peaceful future.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the changing attitude, particularly in the Irish Republic, where for many decades there was little or no appreciation of that contribution? Does he agree that that should continue and, in fact, increase over the coming years?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The co-operation and full support we have received from the Irish Government has been most welcome, and I hope it will set a new tone for future commemorations. It is deeply appreciated by those on both sides of the border who have been involved in these commemorations.

Albert Owen: Another way to commemorate the shared interest between Ireland and the UK is through the merchant navy. Many vessels sailed constantly through the great war between Ireland and Welsh ports, and there were many casualties. We have had commemorations of that this year, so will the Secretary of State put on record his thanks to the merchant seafarers of Ireland and Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Jeremy Wright: I will certainly do that. I am sure the commemorations that will take place in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will make particular reference to those people, and that is entirely as it should be. It is also important to say that the German Government have been hugely supportive of our commemorations. Germany has been represented at very senior levels at all our events, and German military representatives have participated extensively.
One hundred years ago, the news of the Armistice was celebrated on these shores. On Remembrance Sunday this year, out of respect for living veterans, and the service’s wider purpose in remembering the fallen of all conflicts, we will share our usual sombre moment of  remembrance, with the customary two minutes’ silence. Wreaths will be laid at the Cenotaph, including, uniquely, one by the President of Germany. In recent months, there has been an unprecedented amount of commemorative activity up and down the country, leading up to that day. The nation is truly coming together, because 11 November 1918 is a significant day in our history. In dispatches from the frontline, soldiers often struggled to articulate how they felt when the guns stopped firing. They reported a mixture of joy, relief, numb disbelief and grief. For many, there was also a sense of achievement and justice.

Bob Stewart: Let me remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the words of Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy—“Woodbine Willie”:
“There are many kinds of sorrow in this world of love and hate but there is no keener sorrow than a soldier’s for his mate”.

Jeremy Wright: Those words put it well. It is evident in all the commemorations we have witnessed how much of what was done and sacrificed by those who fought was done in fellowship for those they went to fight with. I agree with my hon. Friend.
After the service of remembrance this year, we will give our thanks for the end of the war and show our support for those who returned. The traditional Royal British Legion parade of veterans will this year be followed by an additional procession of 10,000 members of the public paying personal tribute and giving thanks to the generation who served then. The procession will be complemented in the afternoon by the nationwide ringing of bells, across the UK, and throughout the rest of the world, echoing the bells that rang out after many years of silence 100 years ago. In the evening there will be a national service of reflection and thanksgiving in Westminster abbey, with similar services taking place across the UK. This will be a moving and inspiring day that will unite us all.
I am sure we will hear plenty more reflections on these events during this debate. Many people have been involved in making these commemorations a success: charities, including, of course, the Royal British Legion; civil society groups; officials from across the Government, including, in particular, those from my Department; and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. They all deserve our thanks and congratulations. I would also like to thank the first world war advisory group for its guidance throughout this process. I want to make special mention of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has acted throughout this period as the Prime Minister’s special representative for the first world war. I hope the House will hear from him this afternoon, and I think it true to say these commemorations would not have had the same shape and resonance as they have had without his considerable efforts. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), whom I am also delighted to see in his place this afternoon. I know he has also been passionate in wanting these commemorations to have the widest possible reach.
The first world war started more than a century ago, yet these commemorations have brought that war to life in ways that feel tangible and within our grasp. It is so  important that future generations have the opportunity to hear these stories. This was a war not about monarchs or generals, but about people like us. In fact, 264 Members of this House served in that war, 22 of whom were killed. We remember the remarkable challenges faced by all those who fought, but we also remember that they came from our cities, towns and villages. They were people like us, and that should give us hope, as well as pride and sadness, because in those whom we remember, we see the huge capacity for service, for sacrifice, in people just like us, just when history needed it. They went off to war with friends and neighbours and workmates, or contributed in other ways, not because they thought they were special, but because they thought they were ordinary. They did what they thought everyone did for their country in its hour of need, but we remember them, and honour them, 100 years later, not because we know they were ordinary but because we know they were special.
Over the past four years, we have done our best to remember them all. I believe that we have done it well and that we can be proud not just of the people whom we have remembered, but of the way in which we have remembered them, and this House, and this nation, will always remember them.

Tom Watson: I thank the Secretary of State for what I thought was a solemn, dignified and thoughtful contribution to open the debate. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).
It is genuinely a great honour to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition to mark Armistice Day in this debate and the centenary of the end of what was then the greatest military conflict that the world had ever seen. It is both a privilege and a duty, shared by all of us, to honour the sacrifice of all those who served in that war.
Today, I want to talk of remembrance but also of reconciliation, of internationalism, conflict resolution and the lessons of war. I wish to touch on the work of some of the institutions that support our veterans and honour the memory of the fallen. Remembrance Day and the poppies that so many of us are wearing today have come to symbolise not just the sacrifices of the great war, but the sacrifices made in all wars by all who play a part in them.
I remember when I was a child, many of the veterans of the great war were still with us and the veterans of the second world war, my grandparents’ generation, did not seem old—although they seemed old to me at the time. Today, all of those who served between 1914 and 1918 have passed away. Even the number of second world war veterans is dwindling. Just over a decade ago, I was privileged to play a part, along with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and other Members of this House, in efforts to ensure that the last great British war veteran, the last Tommy, to pass away, was properly honoured whoever they might have been.
Harry Patch, the last surviving British soldier to have fought in the trenches died in 2009. Claude Choules, the last English-born great war combat veteran, who served  in the Royal Navy died in 2011. Florence Green, the last surviving great war service veteran, died in 2012. With them, the great war passed irreversibly from living memory to history. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said in his intervention, it is the responsibility of all of us to continue to recognise the sacrifice that that generation made and to learn the lessons of history. No organisation has done more to recognise the sacrifice and the contribution of that first world war generation than the Royal British Legion.
The Legion was formed just after the war—the poppy of Flanders Field is its emblem—but it does not just commemorate; it also runs impressive modern campaigns relevant to today’s veterans, providing them with financial, emotional and psychological support. The Legion is desperately short of members. People think it is necessary to be a veteran to join, but it is not. In fact, it is a pleasure to see so many civilians in my constituency of West Bromwich East supporting this important organisation. As the Secretary of State alluded to, the legion’s commemoration this year is particularly important. We welcome the special khadi poppies that honour the 74,000 Indian soldiers who lost their lives fighting for Britain.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the contribution of soldiers from the Indian subcontinent, and for having signed the early-day motion for a national Sikh war memorial in central London. That is one of the reasons that he is held in such high regard within the global Sikh community, along with other right hon. and hon. Members of this House. Does he agree that it is wonderful to see many Sikh war memorials popping up in small towns across the country including in Gravesend, Coventry, the National Memorial Arboretum and now in Smethwick, and that those memorials are a symbol of people in those places displaying their pride?

Tom Watson: I do. My hon. Friend—the first turbaned Sikh on the Labour Benches in the House of Commons—stands up for the Sikh community and unites the House in our desire to show respect for the Sikhs who lost their lives in the great war.

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very measured speech. During the remarkable service that we attended, I was thinking that my wife’s great uncle signed up at 17 years old in 1914 and was dead just before his 18th birthday in 1915 in the Battle of Loos. Many of my own family also served. We talk about remembrance a lot, but 28 years later this country was back at war again and my father was fighting for his life, to save democracy and to save freedom. Although we may not forget them, we also have to remember that we never want to repeat that process ever again.

Tom Watson: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Later in my contribution I will touch on some of the lessons learned, and perhaps the mistakes that were made, after the Armistice was signed.
This year the Royal British Legion has also produced gold leaf poppies specifically to commemorate the centenary of the war. What is most remarkable about the Legion is not just the inspiring work its people do in the weeks that are leading up to Remembrance Sunday;  it is the work they do all year round, reminding us all that remembrance is something we should do all year round.
Armistice Day has always been a bittersweet commemoration in this country: sweet because it marks the end of a war that scarred Europe and the world, the end of four years of industrialised killing, the like of which had never been seen before; sweet because for Britain and our allies it celebrates a victory against a war of aggression by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire, so it was celebrated at the time. When the news of the Armistice came through, cheering crowds gathered in every town square. There was dancing and singing, and church bells rang out for the first time in four years. It is fitting that bell ringing—not just in this country, but around the world—is part of this year’s centenary commemorations. And yet it is far more bitter than sweet. Armistice Day is always a solemn event of reflection and remembrance, and it is treated as such in wreath-laying ceremonies at memorials all over the country that hon. and right hon. Members from across this House will be attending in their constituencies this weekend.
Millions of men never came home—nearly 1 million British dead alone, lying alongside hundreds of thousands from what was then the British empire. Millions more returned with physical or psychological injuries, and with memories of the friends and comrades they left behind in the trenches of Flanders and the Somme, in Turkey and Palestine, in the Atlantic and the North sea. Of 14,000 parishes in England and Wales, only 50 saw all their soldiers come home, and every single community in Scotland and Ireland lost at least someone. Many places lost far more. The small village of Wadhurst in East Sussex lost 25 men in a single day in 1915, and 149 men altogether over the course of the war, from a total of just 3,500.
The so-called Pals battalions, made up of men from a particular local area, especially from our industrial towns and cities, serving alongside each other, often suffered losses whose impact on their communities is almost unthinkable and unimaginable today.

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman is giving an extraordinarily powerful tribute. Will he take into account the sacrifices in communities in Cheltenham, where, for example, in one street, Queen Street, of the 31 men who went to fight, a full 21 were killed—in one street alone? Does that not give an idea of the sense of the sacrifice and the extent to which communities were truly hollowed out by this ghastly episode?

Tom Watson: It does. The hon. Gentleman honours them by raising their memory in the House today, and I thank him for it.

Paula Sherriff: On Saturday, I attended a Dewsbury Sacrifices event. One thousand and fifty-three local men perished during the first world war, and Dewsbury Sacrifices have taken it upon themselves to build a profile of every single one of those men. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming what they are doing?

Tom Watson: I do join my hon. Friend in that. In remembering them and knowing their lives, we honour their sacrifice. These events are taking place up and down the country.
To take just one of many more examples, on 1 July 1916, the opening day of the battle of the Somme, 235 of the Accrington Pals—the 11th (Service) Battalion East Lancashire Regiment—were killed, and 315 wounded, in the space of just 25 minutes. The fighting continued right up until literally the last few seconds before the Armistice was signed. More men died in 1918 than in any previous year of the war. The last British serviceman to be killed, Private George Edwin Ellison, died just one and a half hours before the Armistice, on the outskirts of Mons in Belgium, almost exactly the same place where British forces had first seen action in 1914. Indeed, George Ellison’s grave now faces that of John Parr, the first British soldier killed during the conflict. Between the deaths of John Parr in August 1914 and George Ellison in November 1918, 1.1 million British service personnel lost their lives—more than in any other conflict before or since.
Almost every city and town and village in Britain has a war memorial listing those who never returned from the great war. Thanks to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the brave men and women who lost their lives during the war are remembered with gravestones and memorials across the world. I know the whole House would like to thank the gardeners and staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, who do so much to ensure that our service personnel are honoured in fitting resting places. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Yet perhaps the bitterest element of this bittersweet commemoration, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, is that almost all of those war memorials have another plaque or another set of carvings listing those who never returned from the second world war, less than three decades later. The Armistice Day hopes of Lloyd George were dashed. Whatever else we might want to say about what was described as the war to end all wars, it turned out not to be the war to end all wars.
The great war was perhaps the last war in which people signed up to fight out of deference and patriotic fervour. We have all seen the photos of lines of young men, some of them perhaps lying about their age, desperate to join up and see action before the end of a war they believed would be over by Christmas. But in quite a short time, those deferential and patriotic sentiments were not enough to meet the needs of the military in a war on this scale, which is why conscription had to be introduced in 1916. The horrors of the western front made many in Britain doubt whether the war was worth it.
It was not only in this country that the success of the war effort relied on popular support. Russia’s experience on the eastern front, the gradual breakdown of its economy and the Russian people’s discontent with its leadership was a direct cause of the Russian revolution, which shaped global politics for the rest of the century and beyond. The mutinies of 1917 crippled the effectiveness of the French army. America’s entry into the war, which contributed so much to the allied victory, might not have been possible at all without the popular outrage generated by the German U-boat campaign sinking US civilian shipping, and the final German collapse owed much to the suffering of its population under the British naval blockade.
Leaders and generals do not operate in isolation, cold-bloodedly moving around blocks of troops, disconnected from the societies from which those troops are drawn. Political leaders have to earn and secure support for any military action, not just at the start but on an ongoing basis. That lesson has had to be learned again and again, from Algeria to Vietnam to Iraq.
The great war changed Britain forever in so many ways. This year we have also been celebrating the centenary of many women getting the vote—another momentous event in the momentous year of 1918. The achievement of women’s suffrage had many causes. The movement long preceded the great war, and achieving the vote was just one step on a path towards equality that still stretches before us. But the contribution of women to that war effort, in filling roles previously reserved for the men now fighting overseas, helped to solidify the argument that women were just as capable as men and had just as much right to political representation, making progress faster than it might otherwise have been.
In some ways—I realise that this could be controversial—Britain was lucky in 1918. Unlike France and Belgium, it was not scarred with bomb craters and ruined towns. Unlike Russia, it had no revolution or civil war. Unlike Germany, it had no reparations to pay or territory to concede. But its people bore the scars of war on their bodies and in their minds. They deserved and needed what Lloyd George promised them—a land fit for heroes. Instead, they got nearly two decades of economic slump, unemployment, poverty, poor housing and the great depression.
Both then and now, Britain has not always treated its service personnel with the respect they deserve. As a Defence Minister, I met Gertie, the daughter of Private Harry Farr, and her daughter, Janet Booth. They campaigned tirelessly for a pardon for their father and grandfather, who was shot at dawn for cowardice. Harry Farr was no coward. It was the dignity of his family and their tireless campaign that led to the pardons for the “shot at dawn” generation.

Steve Pound: As vice-president of the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express gratitude for my hon. Friend’s words about the Royal British Legion.
Harry Farr was one of 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for what was then called cowardice or lack of moral fibre. I would like to thank publicly my hon. Friend, who was then the Minister, on behalf of my constituent Joannie Farr, one of Harry Farr’s granddaughters, for the pardon that he was so instrumental in gaining, along with Des Browne, now Lord Browne. Will he put it on the record once and for all that if, God forbid, we ever face such a situation again, we will look to offer compassion, not condemnation, to young men who buckle and sometimes crack in the face of horrors that we in this House cannot begin to imagine?

Tom Watson: I can, and we should. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did on the campaign to ensure that Gertie’s dying wish was met.
I am proud of my role in righting what I saw as the injustice of the 306 soldiers that my hon. Friend mentions. Many of them had clearly been suffering from what was then called shellshock and what would now be called  post-traumatic stress disorder. Their families were not entitled to a military pension and often faced great hardship. Granting them a pardon did not change what was done to them, but it eased the stigma felt by their loved ones over the generations. Anybody who has ever visited the National Memorial Arboretum to see the commemoration to those who were shot at dawn cannot fail to be moved.
We should pay tribute to the work of the National Memorial Arboretum in the west midlands, which allows so many to pay their respects to the men and women of our armed forces. As a young Minister, newly in post, I remember feeling my heart in my mouth when I had to give what is called a ministerial direction to underwrite the cost of the magnificent armed forces memorial that was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October 2007 to honour the sacrifice of those who, in more than 50 operations and conflicts since the second world war, lost their lives in service. Today, we understand the impact of war better than we did 100 years ago.
With a smaller professional military, we do not have to face the challenge of reintegrating millions of ex-service personnel into the civilian economy. However, we do owe a duty of care to veterans and their families that lasts beyond the last echo of gunfire. That has to include physical and mental health support, as well as efforts to ensure that they have the skills they need to find civilian employment.
Both the great war and what came after it show us the need for internationalism. It was rival nationalisms that caused the war—rival imperial ambitions, rival insecurities and the escalation of responses to perceived threats until it was easier for the great powers to go to war than for them to back down from it. There can be no greater failure of diplomacy than the resort to armed conflict, even if armed conflict sometimes is the right response to a failure of diplomacy.
One of the causes of the failure of the Armistice to hold was the disastrously punitive terms imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles in 1919 and its insistence on German war guilt, which both crippled its economy and fed the resentment that the Nazis were able to harness so effectively. As Marshal Foch prophetically said, Versailles was
“not a peace treaty, it is an armistice for twenty years.”
After the great war, the world failed to build a sustainable peace.
The post-war League of Nations was a well-intentioned attempt to stop such a thing happening again, but it proved inadequate to the task of responding to the nationalism, fascism and territorial ambition of Hitler and Mussolini, Soviet expansionism, or indeed America First isolationism. The failure of the League of Nations showed the need for stronger international institutions, and since the second world war, for all their flaws, institutions including the United Nations, NATO and the European Union have helped us to avoid any repeat of war on a global scale, even if they have been unable to prevent myriad smaller conflicts.
Building lasting, sustainable peace is not easy, but it requires a commitment to internationalism, development, diplomacy and the fostering of economic ties between nations. Where necessary, it requires conflict resolution, but also a strong defence posture and a willingness to countenance military intervention as a last resort, not   as a first step, as well as a framework of international laws and justice. Too many of these were absent in the aftermath of the great war, and the whole world paid a terrible price for the fragility of the Armistice.
If ever there is a time to forgive and reunite, it is 11 November 2018. This year, of all the articles written on the great war, the one that moved me the most was that written by Lord Michael Ashcroft, who made the case that courage is something displayed by service personnel on both sides of war and conflict. We should never forget that. He made a strong case for reconciliation in his tribute to the courage of Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron.
There was some controversy last month when the Government revealed their plans to invite the German Head of State to the Cenotaph. However, it strikes me that in this year—100 years after men and women of courage gave their lives fighting for their countries—we should, in the spirit of reconciliation and peace, honour the valour and sacrifice of our opponents in the great war by inviting the German President to share in our remembrance. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to make that commitment.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and to colleagues for their thoughtful and humane interventions. We owe so much to all those who served and to all those who gave their lives in the great war that ended on 11 November 1918. One hundred years later, they still have much to teach us. As the Bishop of Lambeth said in his address to us in that very moving service: “War starts in the hearts and minds and souls of men and women like us. And peace, too, starts in the hearts and minds and souls of men and women like us.” Let us not just speak of peace, but let each and every one of us be the peacemakers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I am moved to note for the benefit of the House the presence in our midst of members of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, who spoke so movingly and so well in the service in St Margaret’s church. It is wonderful to have you with us today and I very much hope that I shall be seeing you again in this Chamber on Friday.

Julian Lewis: It is truly an honour to follow two such humane and comprehensive opening speeches.
Seventy-nine men from the village of Brockenhurst in the heart of the New Forest lost their lives in the great war—21 of them in the last year of that war alone—so it is hardly surprising that the village of Brockenhurst should have been early in the process of commemorating this particularly poignant centenary. Only last Saturday, I attended an outstanding commemoration concert that was held in the village. Back on Trafalgar day, 21 October, the Tile Barn Poppy Pod village was dedicated to the memory of Enda Ryan, Hampshire County Council’s greatly respected outdoor-facilities manager who recently died, far too young, from cancer. Each unit in the village commemorates a first world war battle, and service families can have respite breaks in the poppy pods at weekends, free of charge. The Tile Barn where they are sited was one of three New Zealand general  hospitals set up in 1916, during the first world war, to care for the wounded. Thousands of New Zealanders passed through it, and the 93 who did not survive are buried in nearby St Nicholas’ church.
I am sure that in this debate we will hear many tales of poignant recollection of the sacrifices made in villages such as Brockenhurst up and down the country, so I wish to list briefly what I regard as nine necessary lessons from the first world war. First, we must not think that we can successfully predict when a war will break out. I have often quoted in the House Sir Maurice Hankey—I shall not quote him again today—who in 1931 reviewed all the previous great conflicts in which the nation had been involved. He pointed out that, far from having 10 years’ warning—which is how far ahead people were saying in 1931 that we ought to be able to predict a great conflict—in the run-up to world war one, we had had barely 10 days’ warning of that war.
The second necessary lesson is not to sign up to multiple bilateral alliances rather than a single multilateral alliance. In the terrible connected development of circumstances that led to the catastrophe of 1914, we saw how individual separate alliances triggered one country after another in a process of what I suppose one could call falling dominoes, which meant that we ended up with a global conflict out of something that started on a relatively small scale. That is what explains the success of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—the certain knowledge that any aggression against any one of its members will immediately trigger defence of that member by all the rest. I do not wish to be controversial in this debate of all debates, but that is why we have to be careful about other organisations, including the European Union, issuing security guarantees willy-nilly here and there, because we do not wish once again to get into a cross-cutting system of obligations and alliances that can lead to a chain reaction such as happened so disastrously in 1914.
The third lesson is this. Do not think that humanitarian restrictions on methods of warfare at the outbreak of a conflict will last very long. The idea, before the great war, that civilians would be deliberately targeted by the fighting services would probably have been scornfully rejected, yet as early as December 1914 we had the bombardment by the German navy of the seaside towns of Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby, when 137 people were killed in their own homes and 455 injured. That was followed by the Zeppelin airship raids, and the more lethal but less scary Gotha bomber raids—and who can forget that, in 1915, we saw the barbaric initiation of poison gas warfare?
The fourth lesson is, do not imagine that individual valour can overcome the mechanisation of warfare. We had the lethal combination of the machine gun and the barbed wire emplacements. Those defences could not be breached by hurling wave after wave of human bodies against them.
The fifth lesson is, do not repeat the failed methods of warfare time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that the troops were well led in 1918. Well, they were, at the tail end of the war; it is just a great pity that they were not a lot earlier, because time and again it was shown beyond doubt that attrition did not work, and time and again—at  the Somme and Passchendaele most outstandingly—it was tried long beyond the point where failure was an absolute certainty.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend and I recognise what he is saying about that issue. There is another feature, which is often not well reported; I think Keegan brought it out in his book on the first world war. The fact that communications had not advanced at the speed with which munitions had, meant that often news of what was actually happening on the front took nearly half a day to arrive back at divisional headquarters, so nothing could be changed. It is a really important issue. We tend to condemn the commanders, but we forget sometimes that they had no idea, quite often, what was happening for hours, let alone minutes.

Julian Lewis: I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, particularly because of his own gallant service and that of previous generations in his family, but I would refer to accounts at the time, such as that of such a considerable figure as Sholto Douglas, later Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, who became one of the most senior RAF officers in its history, who was flying over the battlefield of Passchendaele, and who observed in his memoirs, with all that retrospective knowledge, that it was still inconceivable that the troops were sent forward time and again into a sea of mud, when it was absolutely clear that the attack had failed and had no prospect of success. I know there is a revisionist view of history that says the lessons of the Somme and Passchendaele were needed so they could get it right for the 100 days campaign at the end of 1918, but frankly, with the greatest of respect, I do not buy it.
The sixth lesson is, do not underestimate the value of surprise. The decisive allied breakthrough on 8 August 1918, the so-called “black day of the German army”, depended crucially on the strictest operational secrecy and dominance of the airspace over the battlefield, just as the Normandy landings did a quarter of a century later.
The seventh lesson is, do not forget—we have heard a bit of this today—why the war was fought in the first place. The war was fought because Prussian militarism and sense of entitlement to invade, overrun and occupy Prussia’s neighbours proved to be something that could be stopped only by force. Again, there are revisionists who say it would have been better if we had just let Germany get on with it and done nothing about it. I would just briefly quote the former Cambridge professor of French history, Professor Robert Tombs, who wrote recently in The Daily Telegraph:
“democracy and liberal government would have faced a bleak future. Authoritarian regimes would have been in the driving seat.”
He concluded:
“If tomorrow the Russian army marched through Poland and we were faced with the prospect of hostile aircraft based just across the Channel, would we react any differently? Let us hope we never face such a choice as our great-grandparents did.”
The eighth lesson is, do not settle for anything less than unconditional surrender in a conflict of this sort. Germany did not accept that she had been fully and fairly beaten in the field. The myth of the “stab in the back” gave fuel to Hitler’s subsequent evil campaign to say that Germany had not been defeated but betrayed.
The final lesson speaks for itself and requires no elaboration because we have heard it time and again in the present day in this House: do not stint in peacetime on investment in our armed forces—or we will pay a cost thousands of times greater when we fight a war that we might otherwise have deterred and completely avoided.

Martin Docherty: I pay tribute to the Minister and the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) for their introductions to the debate. I also pay tribute to the contribution of my colleague and Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Other Members will speak at length. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who cannot make it to the debate—they are in either Westminster Hall or Committee—would like me to mention the commemorations taking place in Nitshill this weekend.
The eloquence of commemoration is often beset by flurries of grandeur and peppered with words of valour and heroism. Those words are often spoken with full generosity and belief, yet more often than not, speeches are bereft of names, ages and commemoration on a human plane. When spoken, personal commemorations are like stones thrown upon a loch, sending ripples through time itself. Indeed, the greatness of war is the greatness of loss, and only as time passes do we come to understand the profound and unintended historical consequences of those individual losses.
For many, 100 years is an age; for historians, it is a mere moment in time. Yet by its end, the great war had justified its name, at least in our minds. Some 6 million UK troops were mobilised, with a loss of 700,000. It was also a war fought on all fronts: a war of the industrial age on land, at sea and even taking flight to the skies. While some would state that it was an un-won war, there is no doubt that the allied powers in fact forced the Kaiser and his advisers, such as Ludendorff, to accept that surrender was the only way forward for Germany. They, at least at that point in history, recognised that a hopeless struggle to the bitter end would be in no one’s interest.
Some have said that it was the best of times and the worst of times. For one family, I know that it was indeed the worst of times. Far from the front at the age of 24, James Timlin, son of Barbara and Richard and brother to Anne, Bridget, Thomas, Sarah, Maria and Anthony, joined the 2nd Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, in Kilmarnock in that great county of Ayrshire, and undertook a journey that would see him, by the age of 28, travel through the horror of conflict. Little did he know that his great-nephew Sean would join us in the Under-Gallery for this debate; nor could he have known that his sister Sarah and her husband John would settle in the great industrial burgh of Clydebank, and that his other great-nephew would, on these Benches, utter his name and have his medals at his side.
Unlike James, many did not make it to the front, for one of war’s best-known supporters rode into battle, in three waves that lasted beyond the war: plague, or as we now know it, the Spanish flu—a reflection of the truly global nature of modern war. Even as they boarded troop ships in the United States, troops were marching to a fate that they could not imagine. On reaching the  ports of Europe, many would disembark not as strong, valiant soldiers, but as corpses to be buried at haste and with no commemoration. Those troop ships sailed the seven seas, and there is no doubt that global war saw the plague of flu grasp the opportunity to wreak havoc, with nearly 100 million human beings dying in every corner of the globe bar Australia. In modern-day Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the global movement of troops back and forth condemned at least 20 million of some of the poorest people on earth to a death most terrible.
It was a global war that saw battles on all fronts: the western front, the Italian front, the eastern front, the Romanian campaign, the Caucasus campaign, the Serbian campaign, Gallipoli, the Macedonian front, the Sinai and Palestine campaign, the Mesopotamian campaign—in which my friend Anne’s grandfather, George Harvey, served—and the ill-named Africa campaign, which covered vast swathes of that mighty continent. It was a war that even reached to the skies. And how could we forget the loss of life among those in peril on the sea? How could the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire not reflect on the role of the Royal Mail Ship Lusitania—built in Clydebank—the sinking of which shifted opinion in the United States towards supporting the allied powers?
The victory of war was no solace to those lost. It was also a war that saw—I must disagree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East—a revolution, even in this state, with effective martial law being declared in the great burghs and cities of Scotland. Workers there demanded that at its end, they, and their sons and brothers returning from the frontline, would no longer live and work as they had—in slums, with early death at home and at work. This was also a world in which women would at last rightly demand equality.
By 1939, we had marched blindfolded toward a war that would shake the very foundations of the earth. Fascism, founded on hate, antisemitism, lies, fear and the targeting of the weak, had filled a vacuum in Europe that many would say the League of Nations had allowed, with the failed peace offering a false hope.
This was a war that James Timlin’s sister, Sarah, knew at close quarters, through her two elder sons—one was in the merchant fleet and the other in the RAF—and her husband, who was in the workhouse of the Parkhead forge in neighbouring Glasgow. Those workers were on the frontline, and it is often forgotten that they are the other veterans of war. On 13 and 14 March, hearing the siren along with her younger children, Kathleen, Mary, Irene, Joseph, Patrick and Francis—names are important, for it is individuals, people, who make up the communities we represent—Sarah sheltered from two nights of intense blitzkrieg by the Luftwaffe. As was testified to on the Floor of the House on 15 March 2016,
“proportionally, Clydebank lost more people and buildings than any other major community anywhere in the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 928.]
Sarah was lucky. She and her children survived. She lived a long and eventually happy life, but she did not live to see her grandson Ronald, my brother, serve twice, in Iraq and Afghanistan. No doubt she would have known the terror a family feel when their loved ones are on the frontline; the human cost of war was known to Sarah. Her brother, James, born in 1890 in Ballinglen, just south of Ballycastle, County Mayo, Ireland, fell on 29 September 1918 during the third battle of Ypres. He lasted longer than most.
As other hon. Members have said, my constituents and I will soon gather in my constituency—in Clydebank, Dumbarton, Alexandria and the surrounding villages—to commemorate the fallen. War comes about for many reasons, but at the end of it are always the dead, military and civilian. For all our disagreements on these Benches, let us commit again to that word, peace, for without it we live in a world in which democracy cannot flourish.

Keith Simpson: I begin by offering my warmest congratulations to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on two very thoughtful and moving speeches in this important debate. I also welcome the new Minister, who will be winding up. I am sure that she will understand if I say that it is with sorrow that I recognise that her predecessor had to resign.
Like a number of colleagues, I am haunted by the first world war. I am of an age to not have had to fight a war—I was too young for national service during the cold war—but my father and uncles served in the second world war, as did those of many hon. Members, and both my grandfathers served in the first world war.
I am by training a military historian. I have written books on the British Army in the first world war, and I interviewed dozens of survivors in the 1970s, but the question in my mind is that which my son, aged 27, put to me. He is interested in history, but he said, “Why do we continue to put so much emphasis and effort into commemorating the first world war and the Armistice, which are as far away from my generation as the battle of Waterloo and the Peninsular war were from that generation?” That is a crucial question. As the Secretary of State said, through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, a lot of effort has been put into involving young people—much younger than my son—in understanding what the first world war was about.
I have been privileged to serve on two organisations as a parliamentary representative: the Prime Minister’s advisory committee on commemorating the first world war and, along with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Both of us finish in December. I will have done 10 years. The commission is an amazing organisation, as the shadow Secretary of State said. Formed in 1917 as the Imperial War Graves Commission, it owed its organisation and purpose for the next 20 years to a remarkable man, Fabian Ware. He was not a soldier—he was too old in 1914—but he organised a Red Cross unit that went out to France. In 1915, he was conscious of the question of what would happen to the thousands of men who were killed. In previous battles, that had been limited. Often the private soldiers had merely been dumped in a great pit and, if they were lucky, a single cross had been put over it.
Many wealthier parents, usually of officers, brought their sons home, and, indeed, a number of families tried to do so in 1914, but it was going to be on such a scale that Ware persuaded GHQ in France that another organisation had to be set up. The first was the Graves Registration Commission, which attempted to find out  the names and the units of the men who had been killed; and, of course, in thousands of cases, it knew not where their bodies were. As a result of Ware’s determination, the Imperial War Graves Commission obtained its royal charter in 1917, although not without a great deal of opposition on the part of many people who, understandably, wanted to bring their husbands, fathers and sons home. Ware was also determined that there should be absolute equality in terms of the sites in which men were buried: that the aristocrat would lie next to the pauper, and the officer next to the lance corporal.
What we all see today in the gardens of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—which also look after the men who died in the second world war—is worldwide. The biggest number who are commemorated are not in Belgium and France, but here in the United Kingdom. Those who visit to the south coast, by the old hospitals, will see many War Graves Commission cemeteries where lie the men who were brought back wounded from Belgium and France in two world wars, but who then died.
This is a Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and, as other Members have rightly pointed out, we need to continue to emphasise the role of what we then called the British empire. We did not fight the war on our own. We suffered horrendous casualties, but without the active participation of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the colonies in west Africa and, above all, the Indian empire, we would not have been able to fight the first world war. We went through the motions of recognising how important they had been, but I think that it is only in the past 20 years that we have given them the full recognition that they  deserve.
The Australians and New Zealanders have, of course, concentrated on their role at Gallipoli, rather brushing aside the fact that they lost more men in Belgium and France. The Canadians are the unsung heroes of the two world wars. Canada put in so many troops: in the second world war, about a third of the Royal Canadian Navy was fighting the battle of the Atlantic. We could not have fought with our infantry battalions in Normandy and Germany in 1944-45 without what were called “Canloan officers” and non-commissioned officers. So in considering the Armistice, we should bear in mind the role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and drawing attention to incredibly important matters. May I take the opportunity to say how grateful I am personally for the fact that my own father, who was killed in Normandy in 1944, is buried in one of those cemeteries? May I also take the opportunity to commemorate all those people from my constituency and from the whole of Staffordshire? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) concurs with me in that. I want to commemorate, as we will on Remembrance Day next weekend, the bravery of the people to whom my right hon. Friend has already referred, and I should be most grateful if he would be good enough to accept that as my congratulations to him on a very fine speech.

Keith Simpson: I thank my hon. Friend. He and I have spoken before about the tragic death of his father and about what that meant to him. I am always conscious, as I know we all are, of the impact that losses had in  war, on families but on friends as well. One of the memories in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission archives, which are now being put on its website, is contained in the letters—the desperate letters—that the commission received from relatives trying to find their husbands, sons and brothers who had been killed.
I do not have to remind this House that some of the biggest memorials for which the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible are to those who have no grave: the Menin Gate, Tyne Cot at Passchendaele, Thiepval and quite rightly—I know the Secretary of State mentioned this—the memorials at Portsmouth, Plymouth and London to members of the Royal Navy and the merchant navy who were lost at sea, and which at the time must have been totally and utterly devastating.
The Armistice did not end the first world war; the first world war was concluded at the peace conference in 1919, but, as other Members have mentioned, the conflict continued. The British Army was demobilised, but it was maintaining peace and order, as it saw it, in Egypt and Palestine and through the First British Army of the Rhine, and I would argue that the first world war did not really end until 1922 and the Chanak incident when we backed down over Turkey: Lloyd George had backed the Greeks; the coalition Government fell; and the rest is history.
I would like to leave the House with just one quote, if Members will allow an old military historian. I am holding the diary of Brigadier General Jack, which was edited by John Terraine in the early 1960s. Jack was born in 1880 and died in 1962. He was a conservative Scottish officer—a rather shy man. He was 33 in 1914, a platoon commander in the 1st Cameronians, the Scottish Rifles. He survived all that. He became a company commander and then became the commanding officer of the 2nd Battalion, the West Yorkshire Regiment. He was wounded in late 1917 and had nearly four months out of the line. He became a staff officer and was then put back into the line in 1918 to become the commanding officer of the 1st Cameronians, and in September 1918, he was made a brigade commander, commanding about 1,300 men. And off and on, he kept a meticulous diary.
The short quote I want to read out is from 11 November 1918, and it is his final reflections:
“At last I lie down tired and very happy, but sleep is elusive. How far away is that 22nd August 1914, when I heard with a shudder, as a platoon commander at Valenciennes, that real live German troops, armed to the teeth, were close at hand—one has been hardened since then. Incidents flash through the memory: the battles of the first four months; the awful winters in waterlogged trenches, cold and miserable; the terrible trench-war assaults and shell fire of the next three years; loss of friends, exhaustion and wounds; the stupendous victories of the last few months; our enemies all beaten to their knees.
Thank God! The end of a frightful four years, thirty-four months of them at the front with the infantry, whose company officers, rank and file, together with other front-line units, have suffered bravely, patiently and unselfishly, hardships and perils beyond even the imagination of those, including soldiers, who have not shared them.”
And most of us did not share it either.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to bring John Cryer in, but after his speech, I will be setting the time limit at six minutes.

John Cryer: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). On the quote he just gave the House, it is interesting that the poets and writers of the first world war were overwhelmingly drawn from the intelligentsia and middle classes. I can only think of two working class writers—Isaac Rosenberg and Frank Richards—who are still read and talked about now, and indirectly I will come on to talk more about that later.
The first world war, or the great war as it was called then, changed British society irrevocably. In the 1960s, Zhou Enlai was asked what the consequences of the French revolution were, and he said “It’s too early to tell.” We could almost say that about the first world war today.
The trenches effectively destroyed Liberal England, to paraphrase George Dangerfield, and led to the rise of the Labour party and far more class-based politics and to the rise of the trade unions. In 1923, the first Labour Government was formed, and in the 1920s, the Transport and General Workers Union, under the great Ernie Bevin, and the Miners Federation both achieved real industrial power. The question why the first world war led to such an increase in militancy and class consciousness has occupied historians since the 1920s, and it probably always will. I will say more about that in a couple of minutes.
In the meantime, I want to talk about my constituency. Like everywhere else, Leyton, Wanstead and Leytonstone made enormous sacrifices in the first world war. For instance, Leyton Orient lost three first-team players in the first few days of the battle of the Somme, and Jack Cornwell, the Navy’s youngest recipient of the Victoria Cross and the third youngest VC in the entire British forces, was born in Clyde Place in Leyton, on what is now the Beaumont estate. There is a blue plaque there commemorating his birth. He was born in 1900 and volunteered for the Navy in 1916, so he was only 16 years old when he found himself serving as a boy seaman on board HMS Chester. Boy seaman was then a rank in the Navy, although it was abolished a few years later.
The Chester was heavily involved in the battle of Jutland, one of the turning points of the great war, which was where Boy Seaman Cornwell was mortally wounded. Two days later, he died in Grimsby Hospital, and he was awarded the VC three months later in the autumn of 1916. His father and brother were later killed in the war. The Navy established the Boy Cornwell Memorial Fund in his memory to help the dependants of those who had served and been lost in the Royal Navy, but when his mother applied to the fund for assistance in 1918, she was, incredibly, turned down. She died the following year. Apart from being almost the definition of rubbing salt into a wound, that tells us a lot about how society changed during and just after the first world war. A child of 16 was put on a very inadequately armoured ship and probably died partly from shock. To raise public morale—let us remember that this was in the middle of the Somme, when virtually every family in the country was losing relatives—he was given a VC in a populist attempt to appeal to popular opinion. His family had been plunged into poverty by the first world war, but when the opportunity arose for  his mother to apply for funds, having lost her husband and their two sons, she was rejected and died in poverty the following year.
This was the same military establishment that was sending men on the Somme uphill in the rain, which Field Marshal Lord Haig argued was not a problem. He said that it was possible to attack heavily armoured German defences by going uphill in the mud and the rain. Personally, I am very proud to wear the poppy every year, but the one thing that stuck in my craw for a long time was that the black centre of the poppy had the words “Haig Fund” written on it. This was a man who sent thousands to their deaths without any good reason, because of his own stupidity and egotism, but that fund was named after him. I always found that a bit odd.
Some Members will have read a book called “The Donkeys” by Alan Clark, the former Conservative MP, who is now, sadly, no longer with us. The right hon. Member for Broadland will certainly have read it. It is quite rare and difficult to get hold of now, but I recommend it to anyone who gets the chance to read it. It is a scathing and contemptuous attack on the British military establishment in Edwardian England. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1997, Alan came back having been re-elected as an MP after five years out of Parliament. I remember talking to him about “The Donkeys”, and he said that he had not set out to write a scathing attack on the British military establishment. Indeed, he described himself as a fully paid-up member of the British establishment—he was: he lived in a castle, among other things—but he said that the more research he did into what happened during those four years, the more he became convinced that thousands of lives had been sacrificed unnecessarily.
In fact, that was one of Alan’s motivations for becoming an MP. He was always of the view that the Tory party was the natural party of the working class—[Interruption.] I hear a few “Hear, hears” from Conservative Members, but we on the Labour Benches find that view slightly odd. He felt that that link had been broken in the trenches, and it was his mission to re-establish it. That is a fairly abstruse reason for coming into Parliament, but it was entirely typical of Alan Clark. He never did anything by the book. Anyway, the more he read, the more he discovered that there had been an almost unbelievable degree of incompetence among the British leadership during the first world war. While Alan would not have approved of the sort of revolutionary instincts of some who came back in 1918, 1919 and 1920—demobilisation did not finally play out until 1920—he fully understood, because he said and wrote this, that many of those returning did not want to go back to and support the society that they had lived in before in which people were sacrificed, and their children were sacrificed, for the whims of their leaders.

Anna Soubry: It is a great pleasure to follow all today’s speeches, but I want to pick out and commend the excellent speeches of both Front-Bench spokesmen and the preceding speech from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).  He touched on one of the outcomes of the first world war, talking about the rise of trade unionism. If there were benefits from the war, they were few, but we have also heard about the beginnings of the suffrage for women and the gaining of the vote.
I want not only to pay tribute to my constituents who gave their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice, but to say how much I have learned over the past four years since we have been marking the centenary of the first world war. Whatever our generation or background—I was proud to serve as the first female Minister for Veterans at the Ministry of Defence—we have all learned things. Only the other week—perhaps to my shame, but this will be fresh to many—I learned that some 2.5 million Muslims served with the allies, something which has not really been heard of or understood.
I mention my constituents and the sacrifices that many made, but the commemorations in Nottinghamshire did not begin only in 2014. In fact, they go back way before then, and I pay tribute to my constituent Dr David Nunn, who has led eight groups of mostly volunteer historians to create the most remarkable resource on Nottinghamshire County Council’s website. Building on some of the work done by the “Trent to the Trenches” programme, they have created a roll of honour by visiting every single war memorial in the county, looking at every name and then researching each one to create an online picture of all those who fell in the great war.
By way of example, there is John Fowler, whose father was the blacksmith in Trowell. There is Charles Clarke from Awsworth, who was killed aged 19. Like many of my constituents at the time, he worked down a pit—he was there at the coalface. Then, of course, there are some even greater heroes who are not on our war memorials. For example, Walter Parker, who earned a Victoria Cross, was not made in Nottinghamshire, but he certainly settled in the town of Stapleford after his great service. He was a marine who served with great distinction in Gallipoli, where he was a volunteer stretcher-bearer, earning his VC while acting with great courage in the face of appalling gunfire.
Like everywhere in the country, Nottinghamshire’s war memorials are numerous. Kimberley’s war memorial was unveiled in 1921 and has just been restored. It was dedicated by the vicar, whose own son was killed in action, and bears 60 names from world war one and, interestingly, 26 names from the second world war. It was in Kimberley in March that I was so proud to join children from a local school in creating a poppy stream, sowing the seeds that then flourished with such beauty in the summer, when we had a freedom parade and the Royal Engineers marched through the town. Unfortunately, Bramcote’s stream of poppies was not so successful. However, it put on a wonderful play, which gave to the children of Bramcote, in particular, an understanding of the lives of the 15 locals who were killed in the first world war.
I have mentioned the role of women in the first world war. We had a shell-filling factory in Broxtowe—the Chetwynd factory—that employed 1,000 people, many of them women. They were called “canary girls” because their skin turned bright yellow due to the chemicals they used. There was a terrible explosion, and it was the biggest loss of life in any explosion during the first world war. The explosion was of such magnitude that not only did 134 people lose their life but its effects were  felt as far away as Beeston, some three to four miles away. We finally opened a proper memorial to them in July, 100 years later.
I have not yet mentioned Greasley, where the war memorial lists a woman, Lilian Holmes, who served in the Women’s RAF.
I conclude with an “in memoriam” that was placed in the Nottingham Post by Elizabeth Chettle. Three of her four sons were killed in the first world war, and she wrote:
“Bitterly oh bitterly we miss them: aching hearts alone can tell: the circle of our home is broken, for why none but God can tell.”
I am proud to say that, all these years later, at least she has a woman MP to read out that fitting tribute to the sacrifice and loss.

Dan Jarvis: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and to speak in a debate that has already had so many excellent contributions, including from both Front Benchers.
Many people and many organisations have been involved in these commemorations, but I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). He and I have been discussing these commemorations for six years, and I commend him for the excellent job he has done in bringing people together to make the most of this important opportunity. The House, and indeed the country, owes him a great debt of gratitude. I say that because there are few moments in modern society when we come together as a country to reflect on our shared history, and these moments of reflection are not only rare but precious. That is why our commemorations must be inclusive, engaging and respectful, as they have been. This has been a commemoration, not a celebration.
On Armistice Day 1918 the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, announced the end of what was described as the war to end all wars. Today we know that it was not that, but it was the war that changed life in our country forever. The first world war touched every family, affected every community and fundamentally altered our country’s place in the world. It was a conflict that brought profound political, social and economic changes that we still feel today. These centenary commemorations have provided us with a unique opportunity to reflect on that, to pay tribute to those who served and sacrificed 100 years ago and to pass on those memories to future generations.
At the beginning of the commemorations in 2014, I travelled to northern France to retrace the steps taken by the Barnsley Pals battalions. Looking out from the French positions, I tried to imagine what it must have been like for them. It was hard not to be overcome by the emotion of what had happened in that place. I walked the ground over which they had fought, and I stood in front of their graves. It felt like they were a long way from home.
Later that day, I visited the memorial to the missing at Thiepval. As I gazed at the thousands of names inscribed on the memorial, I saw the name D. Jarvis—my own name—staring back at me. It was a sobering moment. I finished the day by visiting the Devonshire cemetery near the village of Mametz. At the end of the  first day of the battle of the Somme, over 160 men of the Devonshire Regiment were retrieved from where they had fallen in action. They were carried back to their starting trench positions and buried there. Their comrades from the Devonshires put up a makeshift wooden cross and on it were carved the words, which can still be read at this place:
“The Devonshires held this trench, the Devonshires hold it still.”
This centenary has also given us the opportunity to remember those who contributed on the home front during the war, not just because of the significance of their service, but because this is an important part of the story of how our country changed: the war led to more women in work than ever before; they took on roles that had previously been the preserve only of men; and with an estimated 2 million women entering the workforce, they joined countless individual heroines, such as nurse Edith Cavell and Doctor Elsie Inglis. Our democracy expanded, society became less deferential and the role of the state changed, and our politics would never be the same again.
Britain’s place in the world shifted, and men who had never before been to Britain would come here to defend it. Millions of people from across the Commonwealth served in the British war effort. Some 1.5 million came from the Indian subcontinent alone, fighting side by side with British troops, on land, at sea and in the air. They would, of course, be joined by soldiers from many other countries, including volunteers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the West Indies and parts of Africa. One hundred and seventy-five of those servicemen from overseas would be awarded the Victoria Cross for their courage and gallantry, and we must never forget them and their outstanding service.
As well as looking back, these commemorations should be about looking forward, as they are as relevant to the lives we live today and they will be in the future; 100 years ago nobody had heard of post-traumatic stress disorder, but today the issue is not just what we can do for our veterans returning from the frontline, but how we can prioritise the mental health of everyone. One hundred years ago, people from all over the world fought and died to protect our country, and today we need to remember the debt we owe people who were not born here but who helped to make our country what it is today. One hundred years ago, the first world war changed the role of the state; government took action on food, rents and wages. That links to one of the central arguments in our public life today: what Governments should and should not do in the 21st century.
A number of us in this place know from personal experience that this was not the war to end all wars; wars continue to scar our world. I hope that in due course we will remember not only those who fell in the service of our country in the first world war, but those who have fallen more recently.

Paul Beresford: Now that I have said about three words, it is obvious that I have dual nationality, so I want to support those who have mentioned the Commonwealth. When Britain is under attack, here or elsewhere, the formidable troops of the Commonwealth nations rally to help. In world war one, some, such as the New Zealanders, came from so far  away that if they had gone any further they would have been going back. For some nations there is a huge kith and kin bond, whereas for others it is predominately the Commonwealth link, with some kith and kin. The second group includes the Caribbean, the Maoris, the Pacific islanders and India—we must bear in mind that India in 1914 included Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. As we are well aware, the kith and kin nations are, in the main, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. My grandparents’ generation in New Zealand and Australia were the world war one generation. I remember them talking fondly of the UK as home, even if they had never been here, unless they came to fight.
In world war one, the troops from those Commonwealth nations were at the forefront, volunteering to fight for Britain. For many of those nations, I found that the figures were unreliable, but millions of Commonwealth men came. Mostly they fought in the Army, but many fought in the Navy, and some in the fledging air forces. Their losses were huge and they were heartbreaking. Again, I found the figures to be unreliable, but one source said that the Canadians lost just over 50% of their troops, the Australians 50% and the New Zealanders about 60%. There is, as has just been mentioned, recognition of their bravery—something in excess of 170 Victoria Crosses were awarded to Commonwealth soldiers.
We in the United Kingdom have Remembrance Sunday. Australia and New Zealand have Anzac Day derived from the appalling Gallipoli battles. Equally, I understand that the Canadian equivalent derives from the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I pay tribute to all those New Zealanders who lie in my constituency on Cannock Chase in Stafford where every year we commemorate Anzac Day in the presence of representatives of the Australian and New Zealand high commissions. It shows how much we value the huge amount that the Australians, New Zealanders and indeed all those from around the world did on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Interestingly, in my constituency, we looked after the Canadians.
In Vimy Ridge, 10,500 people died or were wounded. On Remembrance Day here, I attend a service in one of my villages. We always read out the names of the village men who were lost. That was not done when I was a child attending my small New Zealand village service on Anzac Day—there are just too many names to read out at a simple service.
I have spoken about the dead and wounded combatants from the Commonwealth, but we must not forget those who returned to their nations, many of whom were physically damaged and many, many of whom were left with mental nightmares, which we did not understand, but which we have better recognition of now. They tried to return to normality in their Commonwealth lands. Europe owes so much to these men who travelled so far to fight for the allies in a war that technically was not theirs, but Europe’s. They came and I suspect they would come again.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and so many eloquent speeches from the Front Benches of the Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition and the SNP. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), spoke about port communities and in some of my speech I wish to concentrate on those communities.
As has been said, the great war, world war one, impacted on every community in our country. Every town, village and city were affected. The seafaring communities were very badly affected. Like many others, the seafaring community that I am proud to represent had service personnel in the battlefields, but they also guarded our trade links, which carried people, goods and service personnel during the great war, and indeed in subsequent wars.
The greatest loss of life on the Irish sea during the great war was on 10 October 1918, when the RMS Leinster left Dún Laoghaire, then Kingstown, carrying His Royal Highness’s mail to Holyhead in my constituency and was sunk just a few yards from the port of Dún Laoghaire. Among those who perished were children, crew members and service personnel from the Commonwealth—from New Zealand, Australia and Canada—and from the United States of America.
That vessel was carrying out its normal duty of moving people and the royal mail across the Irish sea. Many of the 500 who died had been just carrying out their normal duties; they were seafarers. They were given an exemption from going to war because of the essential duties that they carried out, keeping our sea links open. The tragedy unites the Irish community, the British community and the Welsh community. I am proud today to wear poppies from Ireland and Wales. On 10 October, we had a special commemoration in Ireland and Wales for the loss of those 500 people, and I met their families. It is right that Members have spoken about survivors and the families of the survivors, because those communities and families have been scarred by the great war. It was a tragedy.

Jim Cunningham: Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, communities in Coventry also made contributions in the great war. As he and the House will know, Coventry suffered in two world wars and was bombed in the second world war. The people of Coventry sympathise with his remarks about the sacrifice that was made.

Albert Owen: I know a lot about Coventry. My son-in-law comes from Coventry, as my hon. Friend knows; I think that he was his MP for some time. My speech is concentrating on the families of seafaring communities. I welcome the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) mentioning that many were lost at sea, so their bodies were never recovered and there were no proper funerals to honour them.
A lot of hon. Members have rightly spoken about the personal experiences of their own families. My grandmother was born in 1888. As a single parent who had lost her husband to disease, she became a nurse and worked in the convalescent home at the port of Holyhead during the great war. Many people came to her with severe shellshock, including her youngest brother, who did not recognise her for two years because of the trauma that  he suffered on the battlefields. It is worth bearing it in mind that many mothers and other family members had such experiences.
The other stark memory that I am sure we all have after seeing first world war graves is the age of those who died. Many who suffered were young men and boys; I do not know the exact average age, but these men were in their 20s. Their parents will never have forgotten that throughout their lives. My grandmother’s son—my father—served in the second world war, and she always told me that every day that he was away was a dark day until he returned home safely.
One hundred years after the guns fell silent, the House of Commons is right to remember our communities, and those who sailed across the Irish sea and around the coastline. The RMS Leinster reminded me that vulnerable people were shot by U-boats. Going to sea—I speak as an ex-merchant seafarer who worked on that route—is dangerous enough. Crew members look after each other, but imagine being faced with the potential of being sunk by a U-boat, as cruelly happened to the RMS Leinster. The irony of that story is that the German submarine UB-123 was itself shot and blown up on the north coast of Britain as it went back to Bremerhaven.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) is right that we must also respect the bravery of our opponents because they carried out their duties. It is hugely appropriate—I give the Government credit for this—that the German President is attending ceremonies this year, because we want to look forward as a nation.
Our forefathers made the pledge in 1918 that we would remember those who died, and we are honouring that pledge today, as we have done over the years. As an ex-seafarer representing a proud seafaring community, I will be proud to stand up on 11 November and say to all those people and their families, “We will remember them; we will remember.”

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow so many moving and erudite speeches.
War is a ghastly failure of all other possible negotiation methods to resolve disputes over territory and resources. As a mother, alongside every other mother since time began, the prospect of war makes me feel sick to my stomach; the prospect of our children, of those we love and are responsible for, having to put their lives on the line—a brutal and sometimes fatal last line—to defend our values and population. War goes against every possible mother’s instinct, except of course the most profound one—that every mother would give up her own life for her children’s to be saved. But in times of war, it cannot work out like that.
A hundred years ago, mothers across our country and around the world were mourning the loss of millions of young men who had gone to war in far-flung trenches, hundreds of miles from their homes, to places they had never heard of and could not pronounce, in support of their Government’s call to stand against an enemy trying to destroy a neighbour’s way of life and identity. This was brought home to me four years ago when my children and I visited the Somme and a number of those fateful battlefields, and went to a place called  Ocean Villas—or so I thought—to explore a series of real trenches unearthed by a British lady who had retired to the area and found them in her back garden. On arrival, I realised, as a French speaker, that the name of the village is Auchonvillers, which, if you say it in an English accent, sounds like Ocean Villas. It sounds like a rather lovely place when you say it like that, but it is very far from the ocean and the view would have been unimaginably different from a pleasant sea view. So as young men in 1914 headed over the sea to northern France and elsewhere, mothers waited at home for news of their boys, willing them to make it back home, broken perhaps, but alive, rather than buried in far-flung fields.
In the far western part of my constituency is a large area of high moorland territory known as Otterburn Ranges. It is one of the Army’s largest training areas for young soldiers and cadets, and in the heart of this training area are some of Britain’s best- preserved world war one trenches. Hundreds of trenches were dug in Britain by some of the 1 million men who volunteered in 1914, as a way of preparing them for warfare.
From Northumberland went thousands of young men, many of them joining up to go to war as members of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers. The regiment raised 52 battalions, with 29 of them serving overseas. It was awarded 67 battle honours and five Victoria Crosses, losing 16,000 men during the war. It had ever been the case that soldiers who die in battle are buried where they fall, and for all those mothers and wives whose menfolk never returned, the loss was compounded by the inability to say goodbye or to find any peace in their bereavement by visiting their graves. So the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the years that followed the war to end all wars, and the slaughter of a generation of young men, to help those who remained to learn to cope, is extraordinary. I thank all those across the world who care for them.
Some of Northumberland’s young men, however, went further afield than Alnwick to join the Fusiliers and headed to the sea, to Tyneside, to join the Royal Navy—or, indeed, to join the Submarine Service. It is of those young men—the submariners—and the maverick, unconventional and challenging new part of the Royal Navy’s fleet of weaponry that I want to speak for just a few moments. The Submarine Service is often referred to as the silent service, because of course a submarine can sneak up on an enemy unheard and unseen, and because we never really talk about the incredibly dangerous work that it does.
In the early 20th century, submarines were considered somewhat shocking—not really sporting—by our own naval chiefs, but a few who understood their military potential for advantage quietly got on with building these strange underwater tubes; or, as one modern-day submariner described it to me, a caravan with no windows with a gang of friends in it, and you have no idea where you are. Modern-day submarines are highly technical, very expensive bits of kit, some more complex than a space station, but back in 1914 they were simpler and less safe, and the chances of survival as a submariner were very low. If a submarine was hit or had mechanical failure, it nearly always ended up at the bottom of the sea: a cruel and brutal death, and for the whole crew. The technology moved fast as the Germans built up their U-boat fleet and demonstrated how they could   sink our ships, so the Royal Navy encouraged more use of this maverick weapon, with the support of the then First Sea Lord, Winston Churchill.
A young lieutenant commander, Max Horton, said to have been an aggressive and self-confident gambling man, daring by nature—we do not get those these days, somehow, in the world of peace and safety that we can enjoy—took on the challenge of demonstrating the power of the submarine. He later became an admiral and commander-in-chief of the Western Approaches in the second world war, responsible for the battle of the Atlantic. But back in 1914, Horton and those young Northumbrians who had joined up were living in inhuman conditions in those early submarines. We might consider today that their work was guerrilla warfare. Both our submarines and, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned, German U-boats targeted enemy military surface fleets, and both took hits. In fact, out of 17,000 German men who served in submarines, more than 5,100 lost their lives. Serving on a submarine was, without doubt, one of the most dangerous occupations of that entire war.
We read the historical records about the battalions and their battles; the bravest young men with battle honours; statistics and events; moments of critical importance in those battles; and leaders’ decisions made always with imperfect information, some leading to victory, some not. But human conflict was always the ultimate consequence. Armistice—that moment when a cessation of hostilities is agreed by all parties; the start of the negotiations to find a solution for a lasting peace—has to be the moment that we must celebrate and remember that every mother always has to carry this burden.

Kevan Jones: May I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on their excellent opening speeches?
My constituency office is in the Fulforth community centre, in a small pit village called Sacriston. In the entrance to the community centre is a war memorial that was rescued from the memorial hall, which was pulled down several years ago. On that beautiful mahogany memorial, inlaid with gold lettering, are the names of 122 men just from Sacriston and the surrounding area—it is a very small area—who lost their lives in the first world war. This Sunday, the local community will plant 122 crosses and a few more, because some people are not on the memorial, in the garden of remembrance next to the community centre, and I congratulate the community on doing that. I know that similar ceremonies will take place throughout the nation.
The individuals marked and remembered on that memorial were sons, brothers and husbands. When I look at their names, I think of the sacrifice that they made for this country, but I also remember that their ambitions and dreams were unfulfilled, and their loved ones left behind were worrying and thinking about what could have been.
There was an outpouring of remembrance after the Armistice. Throughout the nation, memorials such as the one in Sacriston were built, as well as clocks, parks and memorial halls. I live across the road from  the Pelton Fell Memorial Park, which was dedicated to those who lost their lives in the first world war, with the money raised by local miners and the mine company.
Those are physical memorials, but I would like to join the Secretary of State in congratulating the Heritage Lottery Fund. Over the last four years, it has allowed local communities to bring to life the stories behind some of the casualties and tell the wider story of the effects of the first world war. I had the privilege last week of going to the exhibition it has funded, where I met two young ladies from North Durham, Jade Hay and Caitlin Dobby. They had worked on a project that told the story of what happened to children who lost their fathers during the first world war, and, in some cases, their mothers to Spanish flu after the war. They were horrendous stories of children committed to industrial schools or transported to Australia and Canada—stories never told before. Their only crime was that they were poor, but society just left them. It is thanks to the HLF funding for the project that a spotlight has been shone on that human face, not on the battlefield, but on the home front.
The right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) and I have had the privilege of being Commonwealth War Graves Commissioners. I have been a commissioner for the last eight years; unfortunately, all good things come to an end, and that will end in December this year. He explained how the commission came into being. Like many great things in this country, it came into being by accident. Today the commission is held in high esteem, but it was not just after the first world war. At the time, some argued that we should repatriate the dead and that people should be able to put up their own memorials and crosses. It was a hugely controversial event but, thankfully, the commission saw through and became the great organisation it is today.
The commission commemorates the dead of the first and second world wars in 23,000 locations in more than 150 countries. I want to thank the staff of the commission and the partner nations that have contributed—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India—and make it all possible. It has been a great privilege working with them.
May I say to right hon. and hon. Members that, while they should remember the great iconic sites in France, they should also visit their local cemeteries? We have over 300,000 casualties in cemeteries in this country, and if they can visit them, they should do so. We have an ongoing project to put up signs to commemorate them. They should give recognition to the sites that we in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission look after in their local communities.
In finishing, let me say that remembrance is important not just in remembering the sacrifice that individuals made, but, as was eloquently put forward by both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, in learning some of the lessons for the future.

Andrew Murrison: Some full tributes have been paid this afternoon, and I add mine to them. In particular, I pay tribute to the civil servants who have worked tirelessly throughout this centenary period, and to colleagues, who have been unstinting in their advice; perhaps I can single out the  hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for all his wise counsel over the six years that we have been debating these matters.
My fullest tribute is to the public, because they have made this centenary. Their appetite for this was unknown when we started on this journey seven years ago, but it has exceeded all our expectations. The centenary has been a tonic in a rather shouty and cynical age, and the public’s maturity and reflectiveness have shown through. Throughout, there has of course been pride, yes; but jingoism, no. I have been enormously proud of them.
When the President of Germany lays his tribute at the Cenotaph in a few days’ time, it will not be an act of reconciliation. The people of our two countries are well beyond that now. It will be the solace of a friend, and of an equal in all the acts of remembrance that we will carry out on Sunday, when we look to the future while respecting the past.
Two small villages in my constituency, Upton Scudamore and Chicklade, last month unveiled new memorials to villagers—ordinary men who had been forgotten for decades, and are now remembered. When we commemorate events of this sort, we very often remember the great men—generals and politicians—and perhaps less so the ordinary men, but society is the poorer for the loss of them. They are men such as Private Fred Barnes, Bombardier William Beak, Private Job Daniells, Private William Hinton and 19-year-old Serjeant Albert Greenland MM—military medal. Now, after a gap of 100 years, they are memorialised in the village of Upton Scudamore, overlooking Salisbury plain. Stalin is alleged to have said that one death is a tragedy, but 1 million deaths is a statistic. Interestingly, Mother Teresa said more or less the same thing from the opposite end of the moral spectrum. Reflecting on those five ordinary men, we begin to understand what those two individuals were thinking of.
Of all the projects and initiatives throughout the past five years, it is invidious to pick out any, but I will pick out just two. One of the most striking, backed by the Government, was called the Unremembered, about which I wrote to colleagues in the summer. Its poster boy is the remarkable Lieutenant Walter Tull, a footballer and black Army officer. He was a truly inspirational individual whom the centenary has taken from obscurity and given the prominence that he so richly deserves. Projects such as the Unremembered and No Barriers have touched those in society who may have felt, quite wrongly, that they had no equity in this material. It has all been about drawing people together and facilitating, as it were, the big society—not by distorting facts for political ends or photoshopping history, but by shedding light on it.
I will not rather presumptuously try to draw the lessons from the four years of the great war, but I want to make some observations. The first is that once we have committed to a war, it has a momentum and a life of its own; we cannot predict it, and we certainly cannot control it. My second observation is on the need for eternal vigilance. There never was, and probably never will be, a war to end all wars. That is not in our nature. Instead, war just mutates, and we need to be prepared for that. My third observation is that peace is even more difficult than war. What happened in 1945 suggested that we had learned the lessons of 1918, but the events in the Gulf in 2003, in which I was involved in a small way, suggested that those lessons were quickly forgotten.
My fourth observation is that war most definitely has consequences that are difficult to predict. Some of them are good and some of them are very bad. More died from world war one-related Spanish flu than in the trenches, but then we got universal suffrage. Society was never the same again—in the main, very much for the better. My fifth observation is that we should always pursue war criminals. The German people were dealt with very harshly in 1918, but their leaders certainly were not.
My sixth observation is that the loose concert of Europe failed so spectacularly in 1914 that we spent the next 50 years forging institutions that would underpin the international rules-based order. Today, the people of America, the greatest nation on Earth, go to the polls. I very much hope that they reflect on the duty that they owe us all in attempting to underpin that rules-based system.

Bill Esterson: It is an enormous privilege to serve in this Chamber, and especially to take part in this debate. I wish to pick up on one comment by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison): he talked about how the public have engaged with the commemoration of the first world war, and I completely agree with him on that. I disagree with whoever said earlier that young people have not shown quite the same engagement. In my constituency, young people have absolutely engaged. The schools have been engaged and have taken part thoroughly, encouraged and educated by the Sefton libraries and many volunteers throughout the constituency. They are taking forward that knowledge and understanding of history for future generations.
On Sunday morning, I shall be at the Alexandra park memorial in Crosby to remember the 4,000 people from Sefton who were killed during world war one. We will then go to the Royal Naval Association comrades club—another fine institution to go with the Royal British Legion, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) mentioned in his fine opening speech for the Opposition.
Today is the launch of the Sefton libraries project Beyond the War Memorials, supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund. The journalist Peter Harvey has explained the project on Twitter. It includes the sending of letters to the last known addresses of some of those named on the memorials. It also includes a short film in which the current occupant of one property in Crosby, 70-year-old Terri Whitaker, reads her letter to the three Grossart brothers who were killed in the war, aged 19, 20 and 21. They had lived in her house before they went off to war. It is a fitting tribute from her to those from Sefton who were killed.
On Sunday, on the beach at Formby, the National Trust will hold its Pages of the Sea commemoration to recognise the many people who left for war by sea. The event will centre around the drawing of large-scale portraits of casualties, which will be washed away by the sea, representing and reminding us of the millions of lives lost or changed forever by the war.
That brings me to my main point. The hospital at Moss Side, Maghull, in my constituency is now part of the Ashworth high-security psychiatric hospital, but in world war one, Moss Side hospital pioneered the treatment of shellshock. The work there paved the way for much  of our understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder, and for modern mental health practice and medicine. At the time, the British Medical Journal described the treatment at Moss Side, which is recognisable today, as
“suggestion, persuasion, therapeutic conversations, re-education. The physician masters the patients, gains his confidence and analyses his troubles and morbid ideas and sets his mind at rest”.
This was the forerunner of both cognitive behavioural therapy and EMDR, which, for those of us who had not come across it before, is eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing. We can trace their origins straight back to the work done 100 or so years ago at Moss Side.
At the same time that treatment was starting at Maghull, soldiers who were ill were being executed. Arbitrary decisions were taken about whether a man was suffering from shellshock and should be sent for treatment, or should be deemed a coward, convicted and sentenced to death. There is no adequate explanation for the gross injustice suffered by those labelled cowards and shot at dawn in world war one.
Take the case of Private Jimmy Smith of the Liverpool Pals. Jimmy survived Gallipoli. He was decorated at the Somme, where he was seriously injured, but he was forced to return to duty on the frontline, despite clearly suffering from shellshock. He was found guilty at court martial after going absent without leave, and sentenced to death by firing squad. The officer in charge ordered Jimmy’s friend to fire the fatal shot after Jimmy was only wounded by the firing squad, most of whom deliberately missed because they did not agree with the sentence. They knew Jimmy was not a man lacking in moral fibre.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East mentioned, 306 men were shot for cowardice, and he spoke of his role in achieving the pardon of those 306. I am very pleased that he did so, and that the Labour Government gave that recognition to those men. The military cemetery at Kemmel Chateau, where Jimmy is buried, has the inscription, “Gone but not forgotten”. How appropriate for him and for all the 306.
Today, veterans are still suffering. In my constituency we have a fantastic support group, Veterans in Sefton, who counsel other veterans. The stigma, and the lack of parity of resource and esteem with physical health, in the military and beyond, are the reality today. It would be a fitting mark of respect to those who came home bearing the psychological scars of world war one; it would be right, too, for those who were shot at dawn; and it would be a tribute to those pioneers at Maghull for their groundbreaking work if we were to make good today on the shortfall in mental health support for veterans, and for everyone else.

Mark Francois: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this important debate, in which we have heard excellent Back-Bench and Front-Bench contributions in commemoration of all those who gave their life in that epic conflict which became the first world war. Although I do not come from a military family per se, my father Reginald Francois fought in the second war, on a minesweeper at D-day, and my grandfather Matthew John Francois served in the first war in the Rifle Brigade, joining up in his 30s. He lost his leg as a casualty.
The first world war massively influenced the development of this country in social, economic, military and political terms, but I would like to focus on another area in which it greatly influenced this country: our cultural history. The first world war has been depicted in many art forms, not least in film. Famous movies such as “Oh! What a Lovely War”, “All Quiet on the Western Front”, “Gallipoli” and, more recently, “War Horse” have given us vivid depictions, both satirical and brutally realistic, of life in the trenches. There have also been books and plays of many kinds; “Birdsong” and “Journey’s End” are two that spring readily to mind.
However, some of the most evocative memories from the first world war are brought to us by the soldiers who became known as the war poets. These were young men, mainly—although not exclusively—from English public schools, who served as junior officers or in other ranks, predominantly on the western front. One of the earlier, arguably more optimistic, war poets, Rupert Brooke, was born on 3 August 1887, the son of a housemaster at Rugby School. Educated at Rugby and then King’s College, Cambridge, he was commissioned into the Royal Naval Division in 1914, before being redeployed to Gallipoli in March 1915, where he became fatally ill and died of blood poisoning that April. However, while on leave in December 1914, Brooke wrote his five war sonnets, of which the most famous is undoubtedly “The Soldier”.
“If I should die think only this of me:
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is forever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam;
A body of England’s, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.
And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.”
As the war progressed, the mood of the war poets changed. In Siegfried Sassoon’s “The General”, he expresses great scorn for those who gave the orders that led men to die. In the latter stages of the war came Wilfrid Owen, who was born on 18 March 1893, the son of a former mayor who had fallen on hard times. He never attended university, but in 1916 he was commissioned into the Manchester Regiment. In 1917, Owen wrote arguably the most famous of all the war poems, “Dulce et Decorum Est”. The final verse refers to a casualty:
“If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.”
Contrary to the “Blackadder” theory of world war one—of senseless slaughter in the trenches, with no gains by either side—in the summer and autumn of 1918 the British Army did get it right. It breached the impenetrable Hindenburg line and broke the back of the German army. Using new tactics of combined arms, short and sudden artillery bombardments and the mass use of tanks, the British Army comprehensively defeated the Germans in the field and brought about the armistice. By a great irony, Wilfred Owen was awarded the Military Cross in October 1918, and on 4 November, just one week before the Armistice, he was killed leading his platoon in an assault on the Sambre-Oise canal.
The great writings of these men live on today to remind us of the horror of war, and of trench warfare in particular. We must never forget the sacrifices that were made so that we can continue to live in a free country. Lest we forget.

Hilary Benn: I want to speak about two men who never came home from the great war: my great uncle Oliver Williams Benn and George Edwin Ellison.
Oliver was little spoken of in our family when I was growing up, I suspect because the pain of his loss was still too raw despite the passing of the years. What we do know about him now is thanks to my son James, who wrote a book about his life. He was commissioned into the Somerset Light Infantry and arrived in Gallipoli on 26 May 1915, landing on W beach at Cape Helles, where he was posted to the 1st Battalion the Essex Regiment. Ten days later, on 6 June, he was posted missing after the third battle of Krithia. The family desperately searched for news in the hope that he had been captured. His mother wrote to him regularly, but gradually hope faded and at the end of the war all her letters were returned unopened.
A few summers ago, we retraced Oliver’s journey from the beach to the place where he died. The trenches, their edges softened by the years, are still visible in the woods, but the site of trench H12, where he was last seen, is now a field of sunflowers. As we stood there in the burning midday sun, my son James read from Oliver’s last letter to his mother, in which he wrote:
“Good-bye mother darling... Please don’t worry… All my best love, your very happy boy. Nol.”—
Nol was the family nickname for him. His body was never found and he is one of over 20,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers whose names are inscribed on the Helles memorial. He was 27 years old.
George Edwin Ellison lived in Leeds and joined the 5th Royal Irish Lancers at the outbreak of war. He fought at the battle of Mons in 1914 and in the years that followed, at Loos, Ypres and Cambrai, before returning to Mons on 11 November 1918, when, while scouting in the woods on horseback, he was shot and killed by a sniper—a “goodnight kiss”, in the slang. It was around 9.30 in the morning, an hour and a half before the Armistice. George Ellison was 40 years old. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) reminded us in his magnificent speech—as was the speech of the Secretary of State—he was the last British soldier to lose his life in battle in the great war, and he rests in the St Symphorien cemetery, as beautiful in its own way as the field of sunflowers in Gallipoli. How quickly nature covers up the horror of war.
Whether by design or fate, George Ellison’s grave is just a few footsteps across the grass, as we heard, from the resting place of the first British soldier to die in action on the western front, John Parr, who was with the 4th Battalion the Middlesex Regiment. He was just 17 years of age. The first and the last, and in between them in time, if not in place, lie the millions who gave their lives in the war that was meant to end all wars, but did not.
Philip Parker wrote this poem inspired by the life and death of George Ellison and John Parr. It is part of “The Centena Collection” of Armistice poems, produced in collaboration with the Imperial War Museum by a group of writers known simply as 26. Each poem is exactly 100 words. It is entitled “Goodnight Kiss”:
“Five strides apart, five summers past, I saluted you and the old sweats riding to War.
I fell first. And waited: while you mined the frozen mud. Ducked into crump holes. Pinched lice from your seams. Felt the pear drops’ sting at Wipers.”—
“pear drops” was the slang for gas—
“You drink Hannah’s words from home; Jimmy’s walking now.
Then you’re following the tank tracks from Cambrai. The chase draws you to Mons, where your War began. In the woods on the eleventh day, a goodnight kiss. Ninety minutes to Armistice.
My wait ends. First and last in a bunker for pals, we lie five strides apart.”
May those who fell forever rest in peace as we who are left resolve always to remember them.

Bob Stewart: I thought the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was very touching; I thank him for giving it.
I want to talk about an incident in my life that connected me to the first world war. On Friday 17 December 1982 at St George’s church, Stockport, I attended the funeral of a young soldier from my company who had been killed in Northern Ireland. Sadly, it was the sixth funeral that I had attended that week; all were for men from my company—the company I was commanding was A Company of the 1st Cheshires. In all, 11 soldiers and six civilians—five of them young women, one of whom died in my arms—were killed by an Irish National Liberation Army bomb on Monday 6 December at Ballykelly, County Londonderry.
As I came out of St George’s, a very old lady was weeping quietly on the far side of the road. I had not noticed her in the funeral, but she might have been there. I crossed the road and spoke to her. I think I said, “The soldier is out of his pain now, you know.” She looked up at me and replied, “You don’t understand.” To be honest, I was somewhat irked by that comment, as I was with my soldier when he died and I was grieving, too. I must have shown unworthy irritation to her, because she said, “No, you really don’t understand.” I remember asking her why, and she said something like, “When I was a young girl, I stood where I am now and watched 800 young local boys of the 6th Cheshires go into that church. I knew many of them. That must have been in 1915. They went off to the war. When they came back home there were only enough of them to fill three pews in that church.”
That brought me up short. That lady was recalling hundreds of boys who certainly did not want to die in battle—battles such as the Somme, where, as we all  recall, 19,240 of our soldiers died on the first day alone. Those soldiers had very little choice. Of course, we must remember them, but personally I always remember everyone, soldiers and civilians, killed in conflict, and right now I am remembering every day the soldiers, the girls and the one boy killed at Ballykelly on 6 December 1982.

Ruth Smeeth: It is a huge responsibility to follow the last two extraordinary speeches from my friend the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I think that everyone in the Chamber was touched by both.
We use the phrase very easily, but it is a genuine privilege to take part in this debate and to pay tribute to all those who serve and have served and especially to the memory of all those who fought in the great war of 1914-18 and their families. For the first time in history, an entire generation was touched by the horrors of war. One hundred years on, there are still no words to articulate the sacrifice they made or the debt we owe. There can be no tributes to meet the measure of the price paid, lives lost or impact on our society.
In the spirit of honour and remembrance, however, we try as best we can. As we approach the centenary of the armistice, it has been awe-inspiring to see the outpouring of support and commemoration across the country, especially in my own constituency. I recently had the great pleasure of visiting the Weeping Window installation at Middleport pottery, installed in the heart of my constituency. As well as being a powerful and beautiful commemoration of our fallen heroes, the ceramic poppies that cascaded from our bottle kiln served as a beautiful tribute to our own city’s heritage and craftsmanship.
These commemorations convey so clearly and so movingly the Potteries’ wartime history and the people of our community who lived in the shadow of war. North Staffordshire has a proud military tradition, past and present, and my constituency is home to many service families, for whom this season of remembrance holds a deep importance. I am sure I speak for everyone in this place when I say to them: thank you. Thank you for what you have done for our country and for the sacrifices you have made in our defence.
In each of the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent and the villages and communities in between, our permanent memorials have been joined by other tributes as our community comes together to pay our respects. One example is the brilliant There But Not There project, which was honoured in the recent Budget. It is an art installation whose aim is to put figures representing every name on local war memorials in the places around the country where their absence was felt, whether in schools, workplaces or places of worship. From St John’s Church in Burslem and its beautiful poppy display to Milton parish church, where parishioners have knitted more than 3,000 poppies to adorn their building, local people are doing their part to mark this historic occasion.
As part of the Stoke-on-Trent Remembers campaign, a series of silhouettes—made and designed locally by Andy Edwards and PM Training—has been installed in each of the six towns. The 8-foot-high steel figures depict a real account of a local person’s experiences of war. There are stories such as that of Corporal A. P. Oakes, of Scotia Road, Burslem and the 1st Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment, who was present for the Christmas Day truce at Flanders in 1914. In his diaries, Corporal Oakes described his experience of that all too brief moment of humanity between the trenches:
“Our chaps started to shout across good humouredly, and the Germans replied in the same spirit. Then both sides got on top of their respective trenches, and one man from both sides met half way. Then peace on earth, good will to all men! was the order of the day, or rather the night... They all seemed anxious for a speedy termination of the war and one fellow made us all laugh by saying that both sides should stand back-to-back and advance.”
Across our community, there have been so many wonderful stories of commemoration. I was particularly struck this week by news that a quilt embroidered by 60 soldiers who had been recovering at the Stoke War Hospital had been rediscovered more than 100 years after it had been stitched. The quilt had previously been unveiled at Newcastle-under-Lyme’s municipal hall in 1917, and raffled to raise funds for the hospital. It is a beautiful and touching reminder of the hardships that so many faced in those years. I hope that that beautiful quilt will end up alongside the recently found “Bayeux tapestry” of world war one, painted in 1923 by members of the 5th Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment to remember 960 of their fallen comrades. It is now on display at the Potteries Museum in the constituency of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell).
It would take far more time than I have today to offer a full account of North Staffordshire’s contributions to the war effort. Undoubtedly, such a history would include the likes of Corporal Albert Ernest Egerton, a Potteries soldier with the Sherwood Foresters, who earned the Victoria Cross during the Battle of the Menin Road Ridge on 20 September 1917. Corporal Egerton single-handedly charged a machine gun nest, shooting three German gunners, and forced the surrender of 29 enemy soldiers. His comrades in that assault included another Stoke-on-Trent soldier, Sergeant Major E. Kelly, who led a charge in which four machine guns were taken out of action and 30 enemy troops captured. He received the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his actions.
These were incredible acts of heroism, but such acts were repeated a thousandfold by so many men, from the Potteries and beyond, who risked, and so often lost, their lives in the defence of their country and of the men serving beside them. These were the extraordinary deeds of ordinary people.

Mark Francois: Does the hon. Lady agree that as she has two pages left and only 15 seconds, an intervention would come in handy?

Ruth Smeeth: The right hon. Gentleman is a good man.
This Sunday, one century on, we will honour and remember those people. We will remember, too, all those who have lost their lives in all the conflicts since and pay our respects to today’s serving and veteran armed forces personnel. However, as chair of the all-party  parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I am all too aware that we owe much more than respect. We owe a duty of care to those who continue to serve in our military. That means ensuring that the armed forces covenant is really delivering and that our service personnel are getting the support that they need. It also means supporting local groups such as the brilliant Staffordshire Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre, so that they can continue to work to support veterans.
At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we will remember them. But we must ensure that our history informs our present and that our commemoration of those who have gone is matched by our commitment to those who remain.

John Howell: It is a great privilege to speak in this debate and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and all who have spoken.
I want to concentrate on a theme that was brought up by I cannot remember which Front Bencher: how we will remember them. I want to give three examples from my own past of how I have participated in these acts of remembrance.
Ten years ago, before I came into this House, I used to conduct a choir, and I decided on one occasion that it would be a great thing to take that choir to Ypres. The choir consisted both of young children and a 90-year-old lady—who could still sing, I should say—whose brother had fallen in the trenches at the battle of Ypres. It was a wonder to see her wandering around the trenches. We sang choral evensong in the Anglican chapel at Ypres, which was a wonderful experience. Then we went to sing under the Menin Gate. I had been asked to do something different—they were used to the usual Anglican repertoire—so I decided to do an arrangement of the negro spiritual “Steal Away”. As we were finishing that, we got quieter and quieter as the verses went on, and at the end of that rendition the only thing that could be heard under the Menin Gate was the sobbing of those who had been listening and remembering. To this very day, people who went on that trip cannot recall it without tears coming to their eyes as they remember the experience they had.
My second experience is with the town of Thame, which started a project a couple of years ago to lay a Thame cross—it is like the cross of Lorraine—on the grave of every soldier killed in acts of conflict since the first world war. The people of Thame have done this, and that has included marine graves, where they have sent divers down to place the cross on the grave. So far over 300 people have travelled 150,000 miles to lay a cross on the graves of 212 people who lost their lives.
I was very privileged to be able to do this for Second Lieutenant Richard Hewer, who had fought in the battle of Jaffa and was observing for the infantry at the attack on Jerusalem when he was killed. His body lies in the cemetery in Jerusalem, and I went to it and laid the cross on his grave. And I pay tribute to those who look after our cemeteries; the cemetery is absolutely immaculate, and that made the experience of going there to lay this cross all the more telling and emotional.
The third experience involves a gentleman from my constituency called Mike Willoughby, who has over many years undertaken a project called “Bringing them  Home” in which he has set out the lives of 298 soldiers who were killed or who died between 1914 and 1921. That has resulted in a number of memorials, and I was privileged to go to the Townlands Memorial Hospital, named after the first world war, only recently and see a memorial unveiled by the lord lieutenant for Oxfordshire. That, too, was a very moving experience, as we read the names on the brass plaque that had been produced there.
Earlier in this debate, many institutions were mentioned as playing a part in keeping the peace in Europe since the end of the second world war, and I would like to mention one that was not mentioned, because I think it has played a phenomenal part in that process: the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is not part of the EU; in terms of its membership it is almost twice the size of the EU, and although it was set up with a human rights focus in its initial creation and it looks after the European Court of Human Rights—the only court in Europe to which we elect the judges ourselves—it goes far beyond that.
If anyone is looking for an organisation that, alongside NATO, has helped to keep the peace in Europe over this time, they need look no further than the Council of Europe. I sincerely hope that it will rise to the challenge again in the future. It is unusual in having both the Israelis and the Palestinians on it, but it has not yet made a great effort to try to get them to engage in peacemaking rather than simply standing up and posing their usual views when they speak.
In giving the House those three examples, and setting out the importance of the Council of Europe, I hope I have demonstrated that I attach a great deal of importance to remembrance.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: This has been an excellent debate, with many touching and enlightening contributions. This is a moment when Parliament rises to the occasion and speaks for all the people of Britain and beyond.
In the limited time that I have, I want to highlight the role of all the women and men from the far-flung parts of our globe, in addition to those from the UK, in the first world war whose contribution often seems forgotten or understated in modern-day Britain. That may sound controversial, but even in the arts and culture, in our war movies, there is a palpable lack of black and brown faces. For some, it almost seems as though they were not there. This omission, or lesser emphasis, is a mistake, and I feel that it is one of the reasons why we as a nation are unable to effectively counter the rise of the far right, which seeks to divide us and to sow the seeds of suspicion and hatred.
Many thousands who gave their lives were cremated and hundreds of thousand lie at peace in Commonwealth war graves in 150 countries. Thousands of troops from across the mighty continent of Africa lost their lives, and 166 were decorated in recognition of their valour. The British West Indies Regiment, which provided 15,000 troops, fought in France and won 81 medals and 51 mentions in dispatches. The Canadians who fought at Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele earned a fearsome reputation among the enemy on the western front. The Australians and New Zealanders suffered disproportionately huge losses fighting alongside the  French and British on the western front, in Mesopotamia, in Palestine and in the fateful Gallipoli campaign  in 1915.
Then we come to the contribution from the Indian subcontinent. More than 1.5 million people came from what is modern-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and they were overwhelmingly volunteers. This was the largest volunteer army in history, and it contained Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and others. Khudadad Khan, the first Indian soldier to win the Victoria Cross, for heroism in Flanders in 1914, was followed not many weeks later by Darwan Singh Negi, who was also awarded the VC. The House will note from their names that the first of them was a Muslim and the second was a Sikh. It would be remiss of me, as the first ever turbaned Sikh in our Parliament, not to dwell on the incredible gallantry of serving Sikh soldiers and the contribution that they have made.
Sikhs made up just over 2% of pre-division India, but 20% of the Indian army in world war one. The Sikhs are rightly proud of their distinct heritage and their rich military tradition, which dates back centuries and was demonstrated on many occasions during the great war. More than 83,000 turbaned Sikh soldiers laid down their lives, and more than 100,000 were injured, during both world wars. We are so proud of our forefathers who fought so bravely, and every family has its story to tell, including mine.
In the first months of the war, some Sikh soldiers even refused to take shelter in the trenches because they felt that this suggested cowardice, but where is their monument in our capital city? The National Sikh War Memorial Trust, of which I am president, has campaigned for a memorial in a prime central London location, and many hon. and right hon. Members have signed our early-day motion, including all the leaders of the parliamentary Opposition parties and the Mayor of London. The EDM has been signed by 266 Members—the highest number for many years—and I encourage those who have not yet signed it to do so. I also encourage people to sign the online petition, launched in December 2017, which already has more than 46,000 signatures.
At the parliamentary launch of the campaign for a national Sikh war memorial, a staggering £375,000 was pledged by 15 generous donors. I place on the record my immense gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to our humble request that you preside over the launch. The fact that you took over one and a half hours out of your busy diary and made stirring introductory and closing speeches was not lost on the global Sikh community.
The Government have since pledged their support, for which I thank them, and I am sure that they will impress upon Westminster City Council the need for a prominent location. It would be fitting if we could have a statue of two turbaned Sikh soldiers representing the contribution of Sikhs in each world war. I believe it should be close to Parliament and a place where little Sikh boys and girls can see a representation of turbaned soldiers and feel a deep connection to their history. It should symbolise our unity, our diversity and our integration.
In the first world war, soldiers, sailors and airmen came from every faith and background. The allied armies were racially, religiously and ethnically diverse—just  like modern-day Britain. If anything, those armies are a true representation of modern-day Britain, and that is why we will remember them.

Gillian Keegan: It is a real privilege to speak in this debate and to follow such wonderful, heartfelt speeches.
H. G. Wells, who attended school for a time at Midhurst in my constituency, described the great war as the war that will end all wars. However, the fact that we refer today to the first world war shows that his belief was sadly misplaced. Only two decades after the war to end all wars, the world was again plunged into conflict, with millions of British and Commonwealth soldiers slain on faraway battlefields after fighting, for a second time, for the survival of our democratic institutions, our freedom and our liberty.
Not far from H. G. Wells’ school is a village called East Wittering. It was the only parish in Sussex not to lose a single soldier during the great war. Just 53 parishes in the country can claim that and together they make up the thankful villages. More than 16,000 villages across Britain were not as fortunate as the 53. The names of the 6,800 servicemen from the Royal Sussex Regiment who gave their lives are fittingly inscribed on the regimental walls in Chichester cathedral, which also commemorate the 351 soldiers from the Chichester district who gave their lives. Soldiers died in lands they had only heard of in books so we can stand here today as free men and women. Private Samuel White was born in Chichester. He enlisted in Brighton and is now buried in Jerusalem’s war cemetery after being assassinated by a sniper in 1917. Private William Turner, also born in Chichester, drowned in the battlecruiser HMS Queen Mary, which was sunk in the North sea during the battle of Jutland in 1916. He was just 20 years old.
For many like William, their final resting place is on the ocean floor. The ships they once served on are now their coffins. It is for that reason that I welcome the work of organisations such as the Maritime Archaeology Trust, which raises awareness of the forgotten shipwrecks of the first world war along our coastline. Thanks to Heritage Lottery Fund money set aside to mark the centenary of the Armistice, the trust’s online interactive map serves as a poignant reminder of not only the sheer volume of ships that were destroyed, but crucially the number of crew members who went down with them. Not far from the Selsey coast lies His Majesty’s Australian Transport Warilda. Converted to a hospital ship from a requisitioned transport vessel, she was torpedoed by a German submarine on 2 August 1918, with 123 of the 801 passengers and crew on board losing their lives. Violet Long, who had received an OBE earlier that year for her service in Queen Mary’s Army Auxiliary Corps, was one of those who drowned that night. Thanks to the hard work of researchers and funding, her story is now available for us all to hear and commemorate. It is appropriate in this Armistice debate that we call for everything possible to be done to preserve these war graves.
Equally, it is vital that we continue to honour everybody who has given service in defending us. Although this centenary year has made us all more aware of the sacrifices made by past generations, we cannot let names like Samuel White and William Turner vanish from  the record. It will be a humbling experience again to join city leaders at Chichester cathedral to pay our respects in this Sunday’s centenary commemorations and to remember the bravery of the people who gave their lives.
Over the past year, volunteers at the University of Chichester have been researching the accounts of local residents who were sent overseas during the war, and that work allows us to remember and honour their role in the conflict. As part of the Priory Park 100 Armistice celebrations in Chichester, a life-size model of a local soldier, Maurice Patten, was created by our celebrated local sculptor Vincent Gray. Maurice enrolled in Chichester and died in battle in France in 1916, aged just 24. One can hardly imagine the bravery of those young men as they huddled together in their trenches, awaiting the order to go over the top and face death in no man’s land. Vincent’s sculpture of Maurice is a fitting tribute to his memory.
The guns fell silent at 11 am on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, 100 years ago. Our voices in this place should never fall silent in honouring, respecting and remembering the sacrifice and bravery of these young men and women who gave their today for our tomorrow.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am delighted to take part in this debate. I have had the honour of chairing the Northern Ireland world war one centenary committee since 2012 and of representing Northern Ireland on the national advisory group that advises the Secretary of State and his Department.
It has been a privilege to be involved in helping to organise the main events in Northern Ireland to mark the centenary of the war, and I commend the committee I have chaired. Its members have come together from all walks of life to prepare and organise these events in the spirit of cross-community remembrance and reconciliation. Those were the two themes we chose for the centenary in Northern Ireland, because we recognise that remembrance has not always been a unifying theme in Northern Ireland.
Sadly, we saw that all too well in Enniskillen during our troubles, when men and women who had gathered to remember the dead of the first world war were cut down by an IRA bomb. The poppy became a symbol of that but, sadly, there were some who sought to make it a symbol of controversy, of division. I am proud to stand in this House of Commons today wearing a symbol that has become common in both parts of the island of Ireland: the poppy set into a three-leaved shamrock. The three-leaved shamrock represents the three divisions that were raised in Ireland and that served in the first world war, the 10th and 16th Divisions and the 36th (Ulster) Division. It is good that Members of the Irish Parliament are now wearing this symbol, and I am proud to stand in solidarity with them, as a Unionist Member of Parliament here in the House of Commons, wearing this symbol to reflect the sacrifice of Irish men of both traditions on the island who gave their lives in common cause in that war.
As we have navigated our way through this centenary, through the centenary of the Easter rising—a historic event that is important to Irish republicanism—and the centenary of the Somme, an event that is not only  marked by Unionists, we must recall that as many nationalist soldiers as Ulster volunteers died at the Somme. We have sought to reflect that, because this is our shared history. I am proud that in every county in Ireland today there is now a war memorial, representing the men from those counties who sacrificed their lives during the first world war, and that out of the lofts of many Irish homes have come the medals of those Irish men who served, as families once again lift the lid on this part of our shared history. More than 40 Irish men won the Victoria Cross in the first world war. Today, the British Government have provided to the Irish Government a memorial stone for every one of those men, and those memorial stones sit today in Glasnevin cemetery in Dublin, under the shadow of a cross of sacrifice, erected in the cemetery that holds within its grounds people such as de Valera, Michael Collins and the leaders of the Easter rising. Those graves stand alongside the graves of British soldiers, a cross of sacrifice and tablets memorialising the Irish VC winners. That is a mark of the progress we have made in the past four years in making commemoration and remembrance of the first world war a shared experience on the island of Ireland, and not just something that is commemorated by one tradition on one part of the island.
I am struck by the fact that three Members of Parliament from this House of Commons from the island of Ireland fought and died in the first world war: Arthur O’Neill, a Unionist representing Mid Antrim; Tom Kettle, a nationalist from East Tyrone; and Major Willie Redmond, who died at Messines in 1917.
I have always been struck by the story of Willie Redmond. He was carried off the battlefield, mortally wounded, by an Orangeman from County Antrim, from the 36th (Ulster) Division, because at Messines the Irish Division and the (Ulster) Division fought side by side, in common cause. In the winter of 1916, Willie Redmond, writing home to his friend Arthur Conan Doyle, the famous author, in the aftermath of the carnage of the Somme, where Irish men and Ulster men had fallen in that terrible battle, stated:
“It would be a fine memorial to the men who have died so splendidly, if we could over their graves build up a bridge between the North and South.”
That is what we have sought to do in the past four years through remembrance of a war in which Irish men from all parts, in every county, in every village and town across the island of Ireland, came forward and fought under the Crown, in common cause. We have recognised this period of our shared history. That inclusive approach to commemoration is surely the greatest tribute we can pay to the Irish men, to the Ulster men, to the Unionists and nationalists, to the republicans who put on the uniform of the Crown and fought in common cause for the freedom of so many in Europe.

John Redwood: A hundred years ago on Sunday, a deafening silence broke out over the vast battlefields of Europe. Then, as now, there must have been very mixed emotions. There would have been that great sense of loss and remorse that so many people had been slaughtered, and so many people maimed and incapacitated. I guess that for those in the trenches there was apprehension. Was this for real? Could they trust the enemy? Would this truce hold? Could they stumble out of those muddy dungeons that had been  their safe houses over all those long weeks and months of toil into a more open and free world where they could behave more normally? But they were, and we are, also permitted some joy that at last this murderous, bestial war was over. After four years of mass industrial slaughter, with millions of individual tragedies between the men and the families of the different combative nations, at last the slaughter was over. There was a chance to build something better.
When I lay a wreath in the morning in Burghfield and in the afternoon in Wokingham, I will be very conscious of two things. I will be conscious that there are war memorials in every other village and town in my constituency that time does not permit me to visit that day. As I look up at those lists of names on those two war memorials, I will be very conscious of how long those lists are and of how many brothers are together on the same list, with a double or treble tragedy for the family. That scale of loss is difficult to comprehend and to wrestle with.
It reminds me of my two grandfathers. As is the case with most of us, our great grandfathers or our grandfathers were the survivors. They were young men who fought as young men and then tried to build a more normal life when they got back from the trenches. They had not had time to have girlfriends and to marry and produce children before they went off to war. My two grandfathers, like many others, went at the earliest possible opportunity, or may even have misled those involved about their age so keen were they to volunteer. Both fought on the western front. One was badly injured, but, fortunately, recovered. I wanted to know from them, as a boy and as a teenager, more about these terrible events. Like many of their generation who had been through the war, they did not really want to share it with us. It was obviously so awful. They did not seek my praise and they did not seek my sympathy. They wanted to shield me from it. I wanted to know more about it, but I think that they took that view because it was so awful.
We have heard many moving remarks today, particularly about those who died, but let us think about those who survived. Let us think about what it must have been like to have four years of no normal life—as someone who was 17, 18, 19, 20 or whatever they were—where they had no normal social life and no normal family life apart from very rushed periods of leave, when they could not pursue their normal sports and leisure pursuits because space would not allow it, when they had no privacy, and when they had very repetitious food. The dreadful things they fought are obvious—the shells, the bombs, the rifle bullets, the snipers and the machine guns. You can just about imagine how awful it must have been to have that fear that you were going to be asked to advance on barbed wire and machine guns, knowing that you had very little chance of surviving, but what about the boredom? What about the relentless discipline and the inability to know how to fill the time while you were worrying about what was going to happen next? All of those things must have been dreadful. So this is what I think we need to do. We owe it to them, to all those who directed the war, and to all those in this Parliament who sent our army to war—time does not permit this afternoon—to have a proper analysis and discussion about how we can  do better in future. I am no pacifist. I think we have to arm ourselves well to protect ourselves and to preserve the peace. We have fought too many wars and, too often, we sent our army into wars where they had limited chances of winning. We did not have a diplomatic and political strategy to follow the war. There is no use in winning a war, unless we win the peace as well. We know that the sequel to the first world war is the second world war—the tragedy that it all had to be done again on an even vaster scale with even bigger munitions and more terrifying bombs, eventually ending with the explosion of two atomic bombs to bring it to a very sad conclusion.
We need to ask ourselves how we can make sure that diplomacy and politics does not let people down so much again. How was it part of our strategy that, twice, this Parliament sent small highly professional British armies on to the continent to fight a war against a far bigger, better armed foe when they had no chance of winning because they had too little resource, the wrong weapons and the wrong tactics. In the first world war, it took four years to recruit a mighty citizens’ army, to invent a lot of new weapons and to develop new tactics during the war. We were sadly unprepared. We asked them to do too much and it is amazing what they did.

Jamie Stone: It is a great honour to represent my party in this debate. I simply thank all the speakers across the House who have made some truly magnificent speeches.
Mr Speaker, may I take you north to the Cromarty Firth, beneath the waters of which lies the wreck of HMS Natal, a heavy cruiser and the pride of the Royal Navy during the first world war? On 30 December 1915, the captain decided that there would be a film show on board, to which were invited mothers and children from the shore. At 25 minutes past 3 o’clock, on that same day, there was a massive explosion that ripped through the cruiser, which sank very, very rapidly. We do not know whether it was a German torpedo. It is probably unlikely. It is more likely that it was what sealed the fate of the HMS Queen Mary, which has already been mentioned in this debate—an explosion of the magazines because the cordite was notoriously unstable. A few months later, the Admiralty published a list of 390 casualties, but no mention was made of the mothers and children who died on HMS Natal. Today, the estimate is between 390 and 421. This incident in my constituency, not far from my home town, underlines to me the absolute horror of the first world war. As time goes on, I hope that we may be able to establish some kind of memorial to the mums and children who died so cruelly and suddenly.
My grandfather’s elder brother, Arthur Stone, joined up in 1914. By 1917, he was oddly enough in a Pals battalion as a major and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for gallantry. It was a matter of great family pride when he went to collect it from Buckingham Palace with his parents. But I now turn to my grandfather’s youngest brother, Walter Stone, also known as Wally, who was a bit of a tearaway. Before the war, he had fathered a child out of wedlock in Canada—something that did not become evident until quite recently, although my father had long suspected that there had been something like that lurking in the background.
Wally also joined up in 1914, going into the Royal Fusiliers. By 1917, he was a captain. On 30 November 1917 at Bourlon Wood near Cambrai, there was a massive German attack and my great uncle was at the front. As the attack seemed to centre on his position, many soldiers were ordered to retreat, but he opted to stay at the front. He died, it is said, fighting to the last, along with the soldiers who stayed with him. It is a point of family pride that some time afterwards it was announced that he had been awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross. Now, that is family pride and I boast not of it, but I do wonder about the soldiers who stayed with him. Those soldiers did not desert him. They all lost their lives; none of them survived. None of their bodies was ever found, although it is hoped that the Germans buried them. The award that my great uncle received is about all those who stayed at the front. In a way, I think that all honours and medals awarded apply to a much broader spectrum than just to the people who won them.
To return to the present in the short time available, on Sunday I shall lay a wreath in my home town of Tain in the northern highlands. There will be a parade from the Church of Scotland parish church to St Duthus church, where the war memorial is located. I dare say that it will probably be a cold day. For all I know, the wind could be in the north, coming straight from the Arctic, and may be seasoned with a dash of sleet. That is all part of the job of laying a wreath in the highlands. I have done this for many years, and each time I go into the church where the memorial is and read the names on the plaque, it is the nature of the highlands that I recognise so many of the families, who are still living in the area. And that is what I shall think about.
I think about the past, what my great uncles did and what my father told me. He was a man who always wore a poppy. He told me that, when he came down from the highlands to work in London in the 1930s, the whole city would fall silent at the stroke of  11 o’clock—that people would stop in the street for the two minutes’ silence. He told me how extraordinarily moving it was, and that memory stayed with him. I did not know my great uncles, but I knew and loved my father, who fought in the second world war in the 14th Army, and on Sunday I shall think of him. Let me just put it this way: he wore a poppy and so do I, with some pride.

Maggie Throup: We always say it is a great pleasure to talk in this place, but today it is actually a great honour. It is a remarkable occasion, and it is very fitting to commemorate the Armistice in this way.
I start by paying tribute to my British Legion branches in Ilkeston and Long Eaton for their relentless selling of poppies, aided by cadets. I will join them on Friday and Saturday to add to their collection, I hope. Like every other constituency, I am sure, mine is full of poppies of different sizes, made out of different materials, be they made of paper, knitted, made from the bottom of plastic bottles sprayed red, or khadi poppies. Every single type of poppy is around. I am sure that the schoolchildren, seeing the swathes of poppies everywhere, will be inspired to look into the history of the first world war, and hopefully it will help them to remember and appreciate what happened.
The commemorations have really captured the imagination in many different ways. Last Friday, I attended a performance of a very humbling and moving piece called “Standing in Line”. It is a story of the great war, but specifically about Albert Scrimshaw, one of the performers’ great-uncles who bravely marched to war but never came home. He died at Passchendaele, and left a widow in Derbyshire who never remarried.
Two local people did come back, one of whom was the great-great-uncle of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). He was called Major-General Jack Seely. He was the MP for Ilkeston from 1910 to 1922, and Secretary of State for War in 1912. He was the only serving Cabinet member to go the front in 1914 and still be there in 1918. He took part in one of the last great cavalry charges in history on his beloved horse, Warrior. Many people think that the play “War Horse” is based on the character of that horse. The other great political war hero that Erewash can lay claim to is Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who was born in Long Eaton. He survived Passchendaele, unlike Albert Scrimshaw. Lord Houghton had a distinguished political career, but is quoted by Lord Graham in Hansard as describing Passchendaele in one word—“mud”. I have talked about three people whose stories we know, but across my constituency, on every war memorial, as other Members have said, there is name after name—sometimes more than one with the same surname—of those who gave their lives for our future.
Members have touched on the contribution that women made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talked about the Chetwynd munitions factory. Some constituents of mine who went to work there lost their lives because of the industrial explosion. Women also worked at Stanton ironworks, making casings for shells. In the 1939-to-1945 war, they made concrete air raid shelters. Pressed concrete is still made at Stanton today for smart motorways and HS1, and hopefully HS2, so production continues. The suffragettes were great in the way that they campaigned for women to have the vote, but, to me, it would have been incomprehensible if politicians had not given women the vote after women gave so much in the great war.
I will briefly touch on something very personal, and move on to the second world war. We have talked about not being able to remember the first world war or talk to the people who lived through it. Last Sunday, I was polishing my father’s medals for him to wear next Sunday as he watches the service on TV; sadly, he is no longer well enough to go to any commemoration. He has a Burma Star. My sister and I tried to encourage him to write his story down, and he wrote some scribbled notes, but sadly, because of his stroke, he can no longer communicate, so once again a whole story is lost. It made me realise that nobody under the age of 90 will have experienced the second world war. Obviously, we have lost the last surviving participant in the first world war. We need to make sure that we can capture history at first hand before it is too late. We always say “Lest we forget” and “We will remember them”, but let us make sure that we say those phrases with great meaning, and that we remember them for many years to come.

Vernon Coaker: It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. We started with two wonderful  contributions from the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and have heard from many Members across the Chamber.
We all have our own family references, and I want to start by referencing two individuals. The first is my uncle, Sergeant Vernon Coaker, who is buried in Normandy, in Ranville cemetery near Caen. He served with the 3 Commando Devonshire Regiment and was killed on 6 June 1944, so this is always a particularly poignant time for me. The second is my wife’s grandfather, Captain William Roper Weston of the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry, who won the Military Cross, and whom I had the honour of meeting on a number of occasions before his death in the mid-1980s. I have been trying to reflect on what people like them would think if they looked at our commemorations and our remembrance today.
We should be particularly proud of the number of young people who are involved in these commemorations and ceremonies. I have no evidence for this, but I think that the numbers have been increasing over the last few years, thanks to the uniformed organisations—the Scouts, the Guides and the cadets, who march with such pride and are phenomenal young people—and our schools. My colleague from Nottinghamshire, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), mentioned the schools in our area, but all of us can see this happening.
When you talk to these young people, they have an understanding—some at a very young age—of what they are remembering. All of us need to think about why that is, because it is so important that it carries on. I think it is happening because the schools and uniformed organisations teach the values; they teach that these people died because people failed to work together, to be tolerant, to respect one another and to co-operate. People sacrificed themselves to try to win that back, but it was also because of the failure of us all to respect those values that those people are in graves or became veterans. I may be wrong, but I think that young people understand that. It is really moving to go to a primary school and hear children of 10 or 11 years talking about the need for us to work together. It is with great pride that all of us, I am sure, will look at the uniformed organisations marching this weekend. The contribution they make is quite phenomenal.
Something else has changed in my area, and it is a great credit to us all. As well as the sacrifice that was made at the front, the sacrifice that was made on the home front is now respected and talked about. The role of women, the way they worked and all they did is respected and spoken about in a way that it has not been before, and we see that in the exhibitions all over the country.
I want to finish by reflecting on what this should mean for all of us now. I went to the marking of the 100th anniversary of the start of world war one at the St Symphorien cemetery, to which the Prime Minister is going on Friday. As has been mentioned, in that cemetery are the graves of the first British soldier killed, and the last British soldier killed. The horror and the poignancy of that brings home to all of us across our nation the sacrifice that was made. What was so powerful at the ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of world war one was the fact that in that very cemetery  are German soldiers. On the occasion at which we marked the outbreak of the war, German military officers and German Government officials stood alongside our royalty and our politicians. Their standing together at that ceremony reminded us that the horror of what happened must be a challenge and an inspiration to us all to ensure that we do not let it happen again.

Alex Burghart: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and indeed all hon. Members on both sides of the House, in what has been an extraordinarily powerful and emotional debate.
I have not been able to think of anyone other than my great-grandmother this afternoon. She was born in 1895, and she lived with me and my parents until she died when I was nine, in 1987. She was a great woman—a forbidding matriarch—and I loved her dearly. She gave me my first job, which was to take her her tea in the morning and to put whisky in it, for which I received the princely sum of 10p a week. That was a great deal to a seven-year-old in 1985. I would sit on her bed while she sipped her tea and whisky, and she would tell me stories.
One morning, I remember asking her why her friend—I will call her Miss H—had never married, and she told me about this terrible war in which all the young men had gone away and had not come back. It made me cry; it makes me cry now. I found out subsequently that my great-grandmother’s husband, a guy called Harry who was a cider farmer in Somerset, had not gone to war because he had a heart murmur. It was a very curious moment in history when biological weakness actually caused someone’s DNA to be passed on. Miss H did not have any such luck. I also found out subsequently that she had worked in a butcher’s shop, and when the butcher died, he—much to the shock of the town—left the business to her, not to his wife. We do not know whether it was love, but if it was, it perhaps speaks of a time when there were not very many men around.
I think of the norm now. In the first census after the great war, in 1921, it was revealed that there were 1.7 million more women than men in Britain. The press and politicians rather coldly and cruelly dubbed them the “surplus women”. I also think of a speech given in a school in Bournemouth, quite close to where I grew up, in 1918, when the headmistress is said to have told the girls, “I have come to tell you a terrible truth: nine out of 10 of you will not marry. This is a mathematical fact. The local men whom you would have married have been killed, and you must make your way in the world as best you can.” Indeed, they did: they went out and made the best of it, and went on to ensure that their gender was no longer quite so defined by its relationship to men.
All those men who died were sons; many were brothers, and many were husbands. A great many of them were not married, and the women they did not marry did not marry either. This generation of maiden aunts were widowed before they wed. I dare say a great many of them had enormous satisfaction from the jobs and the lives that they built, but as D. H. Lawrence wrote, if mutual love is
“Like a magnet’s keeper
Closing the round”,
then for a great many, the years to come were incomplete. I say their sacrifice deserves no less remembrance.

Brendan O'Hara: It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to all those speakers who have made such moving contributions today.
Let me start by making a special mention of the contribution made by the officers and men of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. The regiment raised a total of 16 battalions and was awarded 68 battle honours in the first world war, including six Victoria Crosses. They came at a terrible price, though, with almost 7,000 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders losing their lives between 1914 and 1918. Although the regiment recruited throughout west-central Scotland, I wish to single out the 8th Battalion, the Argyllshire, which was stationed in Dunoon and raised no fewer than eight companies from the towns and villages throughout Argyll. Of course, many others from Argyll and Bute joined other regiments or, indeed, other branches of the service. Their contributions are equally valued. As the Member who represents the submarine base at Faslane, I am pleased that the sacrifice made by those in the submarine service has already recognised in the debate.
I have no doubt whatsoever that come Sunday at 11 o’clock, there will not be a town or village in Argyll and Bute that will not stop and remember all those we have lost. As we have heard, every family has their own story to tell, and I wish to share with the House that of my grandfather, John O’Hara, who as a 17-year-old from the Calton district of Glasgow joined the Royal Army Service Corps in the autumn of 1916 and was sent to London to be trained as a transport driver. Having completed his basic training, however, he was spotted, singled out and seconded to the Machine Gun Corps, and then sent to Clipstone camp, near Mansfield, for basic training as a machine gunner.
In the summer of 1917, John O’Hara was sent to France, where he joined No. 13 Machine Gun Company, which was preparing for what would be known as the second battle of Passchendaele, in which he was injured when a bullet entered his shoulder and went through his hand. He was admitted to the military hospital in Flanders before being repatriated back to the UK. Every soldier who was sent back injured was accompanied by what was known as a soldier’s character reference. The report on machine gunner Private John O’Hara described him as being “sober, reliable and intelligent”. I like to think that that was the start of a long family tradition. Back in the UK, he was treated for his injuries at Old Park military hospital before being sent back to France in early 1918 to join the Machine Gun Corps of the 52nd Lowland Division.
For reasons which I have never managed to fathom, when he was back in France, John O’Hara was stationed at the town of Armentières and was part of a group tasked with salvaging sacred relics from the bomb-damaged church of St Vaast in the town. While they were working there, the celebrated Daily Mirror photographer turned official war photographer David McLellan happened by with his camera and took a series of photographs of my grandfather and his comrades at work both inside and outside the church.
The photograph of those otherwise anonymous Tommies, one of them my grandfather, standing to attention on the steps of the church, carrying the rescued wooden statues, has become very well known and, I  think, rather poignant. It is one of the great images of the final days of the great war. I refer Members who have not seen the photograph or who do not know the story to the excellent article by Tom Parry in the Daily Mirror just last month, for which he recreated the photograph, with the villagers of Armentières on the steps of the church of St Vaast—on the exact spot—carrying the original statues rescued by my grandfather and his comrades exactly 100 years ago.
Thankfully, and rather obviously, my grandfather survived the last terrible months of the war, but I have always wondered what happened to his four comrades. What fate befell them in those last awful months?
My grandfather was discharged in October 1919, and in the years immediately following, he enrolled at Glasgow University, where he gained a medical degree. He worked as a general practitioner in the east end of Glasgow for many years and was for a while the official doctor to Celtic football club, which brings great pride to the family.
Ours is just one of the millions of stories that families across the UK have. We are in the fortunate position that ours also comes with a remarkable photographic record. So when I lay a wreath at the war memorial in Helensburgh on Sunday to remember all those who gave their lives, I will say thanks for my grandfather’s safe return, but I will spare a thought for his four comrades and hope that they, too, made it back home safely to their loved ones.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a great honour to speak and to listen to so many moving speeches today, including the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), and to be able to pay tribute to so many Thirsk and Malton constituents of yesteryear, including in my home town of Easingwold, where it is my great privilege to lay a wreath on Sunday and pay tribute to all those who gave so much in the great war and to the sacrifices of their loved ones, their friends, their families.
Even 100 years later, every family is touched in some way by world war one. For the story I am about to tell, I should like to thank my relatives, Richard and Penny Booth, born Hollinrake, of Wells, Somerset. Some time ago, they wrote to me to tell of the incredible feats of Penny’s father, my grandfather’s brother, Ernest Hollinrake. It is a striking example of the millions of individual contributions on both sides of the conflict.
Ernest enlisted on 7 September 1914 alongside his pals in the Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire), an infantry regiment. Defence of the realm against a foreign aggressor, of course, was every person’s duty. His “pals battalion” was known as the Lydgaters. Lydgate is a small village just outside Todmorden, West Yorkshire, where my family originate. Ernest was only 18 years old. His occupation: cotton operator in the local spinning mill.
There are few accounts of Ernest’s infantry service other than the official records, the first of which is three years into his service. During the third battle of Ypres, where 77,479 men were lost in the month of September alone, for his action on 20 September 1917, Second Lieutenant Ernest Hollinrake was awarded the Military Cross. The citation reads:
“For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. He…led (his platoon) forward under covering fire from Lewis guns and rifle grenades, and assaulted a strong point which he captured with thirty prisoners. His courage and determination were a splendid example to his platoon.”
Then, on 27 May 1918, near Rossignol Wood, in the northern part of the Somme, Ernest Hollinrake was awarded a bar to the Military Cross. The citation reads:
“When two of his front line posts were attacked by a strong hostile raiding party, and one section, greatly outnumbered, was overrun, he dashed up, leapt on the parapet, shot the enemy leader with his revolver, and led his men in a charge on the remainder, putting them to flight. By his great courage and promptness he undoubtedly saved his section, and prevented the enemy securing a much needed identity, and gained what proved a valuable one himself.”
In 1919, in an undated newspaper cutting with the heading, “Todmorden Military Honour”, the following was published:
“It is officially announced that the president of the French Republic has been pleased to confer the Croix de Guerre, with Palm on Lieut. Hollinrake of Todmorden… He received his British decoration personally from the hand of His Majesty at Buckingham Palace a short time ago.”
He survived. Most of his pals did not. Ernest stayed in the army until 1922 and later went into business in Leeds. He was lucky by comparison to many.
I am not sure what advice Ernest or any of my fallen constituents would give us today if they were here to listen to this debate or to speak in it. Whatever the unforgivable mistakes and unthinkable atrocities of war, I am sure, at the end of the day, they would be able propose no other alternative than the last resort of being prepared to send our troops into the tragedies of war. Today, all we can do is salute them and all those who made so many sacrifices. Today and every day, we say, “Lest we forget.”
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the centenary of the Armistice may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 8.00pm.—(Iain Stewart.)
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
Main Question again proposed.

Matt Rodda: It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I associate myself with the remarks of a number of hon. Members. I was particularly impressed by the speeches from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), as well as those from other colleagues.
Like many Members, I lost relatives in both world wars and I have found today’s debate deeply moving. I want to briefly mention one particular relative, my wife’s great uncle Albert Woodhead, who died at the Somme aged 19. He has no known grave. Our family visited the Thiepval memorial a few years ago. It was incredibly moving.
My constituency of Reading East, like the whole of the UK, Ireland and the Commonwealth, was deeply affected. I pay tribute to all the men and women who served in our armed forces, as well as in other roles such as in the merchant navy and the munitions factories, and on the wider home front. Britain owes a huge debt of honour to the Commonwealth and to what was then the British empire. It is important to remember the bravery and sacrifice not only of British forces, but of all those who served from Ireland, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Africa and the West Indies, as well as Australia, Canada, South Africa and other dominions such as New Zealand. Indeed, 1.5 million men served in the Indian army alone. Commonwealth and British empire forces were engaged on a wide range of fronts across the globe.
I would like to turn to the effect of the great war on Reading and Woodley and to mention some outstanding local people. Thousands of people from Berkshire served in many capacities. In particular, I would like to mention the story of Trooper Potts, who is the only person from Reading to have won a Victoria Cross. Frederick Potts, who came from the Katesgrove area of Reading, which I used to represent as a councillor, was awarded a Victoria Cross for his outstanding bravery. He saved the life of an injured comrade by dragging him to safety from no-man’s land during extremely heavy fighting in the Gallipoli campaign. Although injured in the thigh himself, Trooper Potts dragged his severely wounded comrade 600 yards on a trenching shovel. Fred Potts ultimately survived the great war, dying at the age of 50 in 1943. Arthur Andrews, whom he saved, lived until he was 89. This moving story reminds us again of the service and self-sacrifice of the first world war generation. It is just one of many incidents we remember today.
In my own life many years later, my son used to play football with one of Trooper Pott’s descendants, and I got to know the family well, which was a huge privilege. In this strange way, our history is all around us. For me, it has been a personal privilege to take part in this debate and to commemorate a small part of that history with colleagues from across the whole House.
Before I finish, I would like to thank the many organisations involved in commemorating this important anniversary. In particular, I would like to mention Berkshire branches of the Royal British Legion and Wokingham and Reading Borough Councils. Woodley Town Council has put up an extremely moving display featuring some of the servicemen from what was then the village of Woodley. Woodley is now a large suburb of Reading, with thousands and thousands of residents. Sadly, many of the small number of soldiers from that once village never returned. I also thank the many clubs, charities, employers and other organisations who have helped to mark this important commemoration and the local historians who have taken part.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. At the outset, I want to observe how well the debate was started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and, in particular, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson). The tone they set was dignified, moving and absolutely appropriate for this occasion.
On Sunday, we will mark the Armistice and 100 years since the guns fell silent, although it is worth noting, as has been said, that the war did not formally end until the signing of the treaty of Versailles, so we still have all the stories of attacks being launched right up to the final moment that the guns stopped. Generals feared that the war could restart if a treaty could not be negotiated, so they wanted to have the best position possible. That is why we have the tragedies of people being killed a couple of minutes beforehand. When I was out in Belgium earlier this year on Great Pilgrimage 90, I saw that one of the casualties was at 10.58 that morning.
What really brought home to me the enormity of the sacrifice was attending, at the start of the centenary commemorations, one of the “Lights Out” events, held at the local St Marychurch war memorial in Torquay. At the time of the war, St Marychurch was a small, still relatively rural community on the edge of the town. Ninety-four names are on the war memorial. I was 35 then, which made me older than absolutely everyone on it, which I found particularly poignant. These men had been in the queue at the recruiting office, smiling. There are probably still some photos of them leaving some of the local stations, having signed up expecting the war to be over by Christmas, before finding themselves, two years later, on the Somme.
This is about remembering that it was a war on an industrial scale for the first time in human history, with gas, planes, tanks, trench warfare and mass artillery barrages, and lines that stayed still for years. These were all things that had never been seen before. It was also a crossover between two generations of warfare. New technology was coming in, but it was still the age of the horse. In the first part of 1914, the British cavalry was still advancing across France and attack cavalry charges were still being mounted. On Saturday I was in Cockington, where there is a plaque as part of the purple poppy campaign, which reminds us of many of the animals that went away to war with their owners. It was a unique partnership, as they faced the horrors of the battlefield together.
I mentioned that I went out as part of Great Pilgrimage 90 to revisit many of the sites from 90 years before. Old comrades and families went to see where their loved ones were killed. The battlefield from the battle of Loos was particularly remarkable. It was totally flat, easy to look across, and overlooked by a couple of slag heaps that provided superb observation points—the army could be seen forming from miles away. That is where, in about a five-mile stretch, about 20,000 of our soldiers were killed. It was particularly moving when we asked about the attack—it was in September 1915, and it failed. When did the line finally move? In about August or September 1918. For three years, the bodies lay in the field. In a distance not that different from the length of this Chamber, for three years British and German forces looked at each over this field, where so many of their comrades had fallen. This meant that, unsurprisingly, by the time that most of the bodies were recovered, they could no longer be identified.
It is moving to see where the first and last shots were fired and to note how close they are, and then to visit the cemetery where, as has been mentioned, the first and last casualties are buried. Interestingly, the cemetery was first constructed by the Germans in the war, and  our troops were treated there in a respectful way. One mistake was made. They called a regiment “royal” when it was not royal. They assumed it was a royal regiment because it was from Middlesex. The plaque is still there. It is a sign that in the middle of that horror respect was still being paid.
Thankfully, Europe today is very different from the Europe of despots and dictators who just over a century ago drove us to war, and today some of our former foes are now friends. It is absolutely right that the German President has been invited to the Cenotaph on Sunday. My grandfather was badly injured in world war two. His mother got the thing that was second only to the telegram saying your loved one had been killed: a rail warrant to go to meet him coming off a hospital ship. He was always very clear that he fought the Germans to get rid of the Nazis. His fight was not with the ordinary German, but with the leadership of Germany, and the only way of removing them was to go to war and remove the evil of national socialism from Europe.
It is right that on Sunday we remember the sacrifice of a century ago and that we never forget, because the first step towards it happening again is forgetting the lessons of how it happened in the first place.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), whom I thank for his contribution, and to speak in this debate. Indeed, it is pleasure to follow all the incredible contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those of the Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State.
I am proud to have served in the armed forces, in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army, in the Royal Artillery. I am proud to have worn that uniform and served my Queen and country. Northern Ireland has a very strong and proud service history. Newtownards, the main town in my borough, was home to the legendary Blair Mayne, who received the highest awards for bravery during the second world war and for whom we still await the posthumous recognition that so rightly belongs to him—his earned but withheld Victoria Cross.
I will take a similar theme to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). A total of 206,000 Irishmen served in the British forces during the first world war, and another130,000 were volunteers recruited from Ireland for the duration of the war; of these, some 24,000 originated from the Redmondite national volunteers, and 26,000 joined from the Ulster volunteers; and 80,000 of those recruits had no experience in either the paramilitary formations before going to war. The recruitment rate in Ulster matched that in Britain itself, and that in Leinster and Munster was about two thirds of that in Britain, while Connacht lagged behind them. Northern Catholics enlisted just as often as Protestants. The German bullet did not distinguish between Catholic and Protestant, between nationalist and Unionist—anyone who fought the German empire was fair game.
Members might wonder why I have taken so long to outline the wholeness of Ireland at that time. The answer is this: I am tired of this remembrance event being politicised and turned so that wearing a poppy becomes a declaration of allegiance. Wearing a poppy is  merely being respectful and thankful to those who laid down their lives to allow us the freedom we so unthinkingly enjoy today.
I was not surprised to learn that more than 50 contracted and former Celtic football players fought in world war one. William Angus was awarded the Victoria Cross. I once read an article that stated:
“The remarks attributed to National Volunteer and poet, Francis Ledwidge, who was to die in preparation of the Third battle of Ypres in 1917, perhaps best exemplifies the changing…nationalist sentiment towards enlisting, the War, and to the Germans and British.”
Those remarks were:
“I joined the British Army because she stood between Ireland and an enemy common to our civilization, and I would not have her say that she defended us while we did nothing at home but pass resolutions”.
They fought while maintaining their nationalism, but now it seems that some refuse to remember for fear of somehow losing their nationalism. It is a very sad state of affairs. I am not swayed by the affiliation of any person who fought against the Germans. I am equally grateful to them all and honour them today.
In this the centenary of the first world war, I long for an end to the discussions of white poppies, for an end to the discussions of British imperialism, for an end to the discussions of sectarianism. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I long to stand as we did then.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise the great movement in recent years in terms of being able to recognise those who fought in the first world war from both Northern Ireland and the Republic? For example, the graves at Glasnevin cemetery are now marked by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and the remembrance wall, which for years was at the back of the cemetery, now takes pride of place at the entrance to the cemetery.

Jim Shannon: I have given an analogy from the past, and when the hon. Gentleman intervened I was about to give an analogy for the future. I too have been privileged to visit Glasnevin cemetery, as have many other Members. I was greatly impressed when we had the opportunity to visit the graves and see what the Republic of Ireland had done to remember those who had given their lives. Some of the history that we heard about was incredible.

Bob Stewart: May I pursue that point? I understand from what I heard last night that, as support for the poppy has grown in the Republic of Ireland, there has been a surge in the number of people from the Republic who want to join the British Army again. Is that not wonderful?

Jim Shannon: It almost makes me cheer. I am very pleased to hear about it, but it comes as no surprise to me, because there has always been a tradition of service in the Republic of Ireland. As I said earlier, the fact that 130,000 people from the Republic volunteered to fight in the first world war was an indication of their wish to do so. The Irish Guards have a strong association with us, and in my town a large proportion of recruits are   from the Republic. They are quite happy to swear allegiance to Her Majesty and to the British Army, and to do what they are instructed to do in their job.
I am also pleased—this is relevant to what has just been said by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—that we are beginning to see a tradition of change. War memorials down south that were going to rack and ruin have been spruced up, and memorial services are now being held as we hold them in Northern Ireland, over a period of time. Great changes are coming, and indeed change has come, but some people may still be unwilling to accept the new future.
I want us to stand shoulder to shoulder, regardless of religious belief, political ideals or anything else. I long for us to stand in simple gratitude and respect for those whose blood has marked the way and allowed us our right to debate these issues in the House tonight, along with the right to abstain—if that is what people want to do—and the right to voice opposing opinions, as we often do in the House, although we are still friends at the end of it. All those rights we have for one reason only: the sacrifice that was made with us in mind.
Some Members have referred to the role for youth. In my constituency, there is an incredible turnout on Remembrance Sunday for all the parades that I go to. How proud I am—indeed, how proud we would all be—of the uniformed church groups and the Army, air force and naval cadets: young people who are just starting out in life, but who want to serve in uniform. We also have an opportunity to see some of our older soldiers, although every year we look around and see one or two fewer. It is the same for all of us. That is life, but a new generation is coming in, and that new generation will follow all of us, and all those who have left us. It is good to have a remembrance service of that kind in my constituency, and I suspect that the same applies to every constituency that enrols uniformed organisations and young people to make their contribution. They understand very well what is going on.
I wear my poppy, and so do my sons, who, in turn, have taught my granddaughters what it means to remember—not to idealise, not to seek to alter historical fact, and not to make any proclamation other than that, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. That is what today’s debate is about. I long, in this special year, for those who have determined to disrespect the meaning of the poppy, and who simply do not care enough to buy a poppy or perhaps even to attend a remembrance service, instead to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who attend annually, and to express themselves in that way.
Let us all stand and take a minute simply to say, “We remember, we are grateful, and we will seek to ensure that the lessons learned through your tremendous sacrifice will be passed on to future generations”—which I know that they will. That is not just a phrase, but my enduring promise: I will remember them.

Stephen Kerr: It is a great privilege to follow my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and a great honour to participate in this debate and to give thanks for the service and sacrifice of the generation of the great war. I have been thinking a lot in these hours about my grandmother’s brother, Harry Blakemore, who as a boy signed up in August 1916  to the Shropshire Yeomanry—he was from Small Heath in Birmingham—ended up in the Cheshire Regiment and was killed in action on the western front on 28 February 1918.
Like many others in this House, I have the good fortune to be old enough to have actually known men who served on the western front. These old men of my boyhood had already outlived their Biblical apportionment of three score years and 10, and when they said anything about the war it was only to speak of their pals and the horror of it all, with no detail.
As has already been said by an Opposition Member, my constituency of Stirling has a long association with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, a regiment that gave extraordinary service to this country. Stirling is a remarkable place for another reason: 43 Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps was founded, established and headquartered in Stirling. In fact the Scottish headquarters of the Royal Flying Corps was at the Station Hotel in Stirling. To this day Stirling retains its proud links to the Royal Air Force and honours the successors of those original men in their flying machines.
Of interest in Stirling over the past few years has been the way in which the Stirling Observer has reported the 100th anniversary of the war. Each week it has reproduced reports from the time, bringing to life the way Stirling was during the great war. It has been sobering. The Stirling Observer reports that tourists travelled from all over Scotland to see the new flying machines of the Royal Flying Corps based in Stirling, but it also printed week after week lists of casualties, with pictures of young men in uniform. The newspaper talked about shortages and inconveniences at home, too. This has been a remarkable act of remembrance by the Stirling Observer, and I would like to put on record my thanks to John Rowbotham, its editor, and his team, because they have provided for Stirling a remarkable and telling memorial.
Stirling’s contribution to the war effort was not insubstantial and the number of people listed on each of the war memorials in all the villages of Stirlingshire give some sense of the sacrifice made by families, but there are two individuals I would like to mention today. The first is Lieutenant James Huffam. I recently had the honour of attending a ceremony in Dunblane to honour the 100th anniversary of the actions that led to him receiving the Victoria Cross for bravery. He rushed an enemy machine gun in France, crippling its attack, and under heavy fire he withdrew carrying a wounded comrade. Later on the same day, he led another attack, capturing eight prisoners and allowing the British advance.
I would also like to talk about 772 Private William Ebenezer Monteith, whose daughter, Margaret Davidson, I had the privilege of accompanying to the service of commemoration that we held earlier today in St Margaret’s church. Private Monteith joined the Seaforth Highlanders in 1910 and was a member of the British Expeditionary Force, so he was among the first to be deployed in 1914. They were called a “contemptible little army” by the Kaiser and so proudly called themselves the “old contemptibles.”
Private Monteith was soon captured at the retreat from Mons on 26 August 1914. He spent the rest of the war as a prisoner of war. It was his duty to try to escape, and he escaped from at least two prisoner of war camps, at Westerholt and subsequently at Friedrichsfeld. He was  recaptured each time. During his separation from his family, they received a letter, which is reported in the Stirling Observer. He said in the letter that the “food is inadequate” and he concluded it with his favourite battle-cry: “Roll on, Bonnie Scotland”—a battle-cry we can echo to this day.
That story and the many others of this generation tell of service—they put themselves last, putting service to their family, their community and their country first. Those who answered the call and those who were separated from their loved ones all served equally and we will remember them.
Lieutenant Huffam and Private Monteith both came back from the war and went on to live their lives—to marry, to have families of their own and to have careers. They gave us the country that we have today, and in honouring the sacrifice of those with whom they served who did not return, we also honour them. It is our duty and our privilege to honour their memories by seeking to prevent such sacrifices from being necessary at any time in the future, and also to build a country and a world of which they could feel proud. Every day in this place we are reminded of the great titans of Parliament whose statues are all around the building, and I am grateful that on Sunday we will all stand before memorials etched with the names of those who have given us the country that we have today. Such is our heritage, and such is the price of our liberty.

Vicky Ford: It is somewhat overwhelming to speak at the end of such an amazing debate with so many moving speakers, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). I was particularly moved by the comments from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who spoke so movingly about the role of women.
The Essex Regiment Museum is based in Chelmsford and it is well worth a visit. We are proud of a number of the exhibits, not least the Napoleonic eagle captured from the French at the battle of Salamanca in 1812. There are also some grim memories there, however. There is a picture of the last stand at Gundamuck, when almost the entire 44th Regiment lost their lives in the first Anglo-Afghan war. We also have memorials to world war one, in which 9,000 members of the regiment died in Gallipoli, Egypt and Palestine, and at Arras, Cambrai, Ypres and the Somme. I visited Ypres four years ago and joined students from a British school based deep in the East Anglian fens and students from a twinned school in Germany. They visited the battlefields together and unveiled a memorial that they had jointly designed, at the site of the Christmas day football match in 1914. It was deeply moving to be there with the next generation as they came together to remember the previous ones. We must never forget.
My own childhood was spent, half a century ago, in Northern Ireland during the troubles, and I would like to put on record my personal thanks to those who stood up against terrorism in the United Kingdom. I first sold poppies 40 years ago on the streets of Omagh, County Tyrone. We had armed servicemen on our streets in those days. The weekend before last, I joined poppy sellers in Chelmsford and it was a very happy occasion. The town is covered with poppies, many of which are  like the knitted one that I am wearing today. I am also wearing the shamrock poppy, to remember those Irish soldiers who lost their lives and who have never been commemorated.
I also want to remember another group. Chelmsford has a long history of Quakerism. Quakers are members of a peace church who take a moral stand against participation in armed conflict. At the beginning of the first world war, a group of young Quakers created the Friends’ Ambulance Unit. Its 1,200 members were all civilians, but they worked closely with fighting soldiers. The unit provided those conscientious objectors with a way to support the wounded, and an alternative to military service. They worked on the frontlines providing medical support for troops and civilians, and on hospital ships in the channel and the Mediterranean. They cared for everyone they found wounded, including Germans. By November 1918, 21 members of the Friends’ Ambulance Unit had given their own lives. In 1947, the Quakers were awarded the Nobel peace prize. Even today, Quakers act as ecumenical accompaniers, working in Israel and Palestine to provide a protective presence and to monitor and report human rights abuses. They wear brightly coloured jackets to accompany children to school across the battle zones. Jesus said,
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”
but he also said,
“Blessed are the peacemakers”
and we must remember them, too. We must remember them all.

Kevin Brennan: As many have said, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. I feel completely unworthy to speak, in a sense, following the many extraordinary speeches that we have heard this afternoon and this evening from right hon. and hon. Members. By my count, we have had 26 speeches from Back Benchers, and two excellent speeches from the Front-Bench spokesmen. The debate was opened by the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who was extremely ably answered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), the shadow Secretary of State, who spoke brilliantly.
There have been so many brilliant speeches that it would be invidious to single one out. What struck me, however, is that we have heard speeches from all four nations of the United Kingdom, and on a variety of aspects of the Armistice and the great war, ranging from the role of women and Ireland—being of Irish heritage, I found that deeply interesting and significant—to the role of the Quakers; I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mention them at the end. It has been an extraordinary, illuminating and, at times, emotional debate. Hon. Members did well to hold it together at times, because there has certainly been a catch in the throat and a tear in the eye across the House from time to time.
We are grateful for the opportunity to commemorate the Armistice that marked the end of the great war, and for the chance to speak of our armed forces communities, and the sacrifices that were made and continue to be   made for our safety. As we have heard, the Armistice put an end to over four years of tragic conflict between Germany and the allied forces, and mechanised killing on land, at sea and in the air. It was signed at 5 am on 11 November 1918 in a French railway carriage in Compiègne, and the guns stopped firing six hours later. As we heard earlier today in the service in St Margaret’s, the Prime Minister of the day, the Welshman David Lloyd George, when announcing the terms of the Armistice, expressed relief at the ending of what he called
“the cruellest and most terrible war that has ever scourged mankind.”
It is interesting to note how different people approach history, because I visited that railway carriage in Compiègne many years ago, and of course the same carriage was used by Hitler in 1940 to force the French into signing the surrender that resulted in Vichy France and Germany occupying most of France. However, when I visited it 25 years ago, there was no mention of that anywhere in the entire French presentation—there was reference only to the 1918 signing of the Armistice. We should acknowledge all aspects of history. This afternoon and evening, hon. Members have given an honest appraisal of the great war, the Armistice, its significance and all aspects of it, good and bad.

Bob Stewart: We have not talked about the French much today, but the French suffered incredible casualties. My wife’s family lost 17 members at Verdun. We have a biscuit tin full of Croix de Guerre, Légions d’Honneur and Médailles Militaire, but we do not even know to whom they were given. The French really suffered, as did the Germans.

Kevin Brennan: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had the opportunity to put that on the record.
It is difficult to envisage the scale of the scourge that Lloyd George talked about. Four million men served in the British Army, alongside 3 million soldiers and labourers from what was then the British empire and Commonwealth. Some 1.27 million served from India alone, as well as over 10,000 from Jamaica. There were over 10 million military and 7 million civilian fatalities worldwide. Around 1 million British military personnel were killed, and the fighting stretched from Flanders to Gallipoli, from Pilckem Ridge to Palestine.
On this centenary of Armistice Day, we ponder three central thoughts. First, we honour the memories of those who fought and died. Secondly, we are solemnly grateful that the terrible tragedy came to an end. Thirdly, we are committed to preventing such devastation from happening again. I have been present in this Chamber when the House has been in a different mood—when the drums of war have been sounding. We should remember this moment when, inevitably, such events present themselves to us again. We should remember this kind of debate, as well as the mood the House sometimes gets into when we hear the sound of the drums of war.
These moments of commemoration are important, and I thank all those involved: the Imperial War Museum, the BBC, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—we have heard so much about the commission this afternoon—and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The fund held an important reception last week, and the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Prime Minister’s envoy, was present.  It really was a testament to the hard work done by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on the commemorations.

Kevan Jones: I think my hon. Friend has missed them by mistake, but he also needs to thank the parliamentary authorities, which have done an excellent job. The Library and the archivists have shown the history not only of Members of both Houses who fought and died in the war, but of the Clerks and other staff who served.

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I acknowledge the work he has done with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, including with me in Wales; we did some work a few years ago on restoring some of the graves in my Cardiff West constituency.
Members will know that the legacy of the first world war resonates in all our communities. Most cities, towns and villages in the UK have a war memorial, and we will all be visiting those war memorials this weekend to lay wreathes and pay tribute to those who left our communities more than 100 years ago and did not return. I will attend the Welsh national wreath-laying ceremony in Cardiff, and a special service of commemoration at Llandaff cathedral in my constituency. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and I will both lay wreathes at the war memorial in Llandaff city on Friday.
Every community has its own first world war story, and as many others have done, I will briefly pay tribute to those from my Cardiff West constituency whose courage has become part of our collective memory. On 7 July 1916, the 16th Battalion of the Welsh Regiment, known as the Cardiff City Battalion, fought at Mametz wood alongside other Welsh units as part of the 38th Division, which was devised by Prime Minister David Lloyd George and included the Welsh Regiment, the South Wales Borderers and the Royal Welch Fusiliers.
The Cardiff City Battalion was exposed to heavy machine-gun fire, and more than 150 men died, with many more injured. Welsh rugby internationals Dick Thomas and John Williams were among the dead. A survivor, William Joshua, recalled:
“On the Somme, the Cardiff City Battalion died.”
It might be of interest to you, Mr Speaker, that Fred Keenor, who subsequently captained Cardiff City football club when they defeated Arsenal in the 1927 FA cup final, was injured at the battle of the Somme, and it very nearly ended his football career.

Anna Soubry: We have the games of remembrance in Nottingham on Thursday. The German and British women’s army teams will play at lunch time at Notts County, and in the evening the British and German men’s army teams will play at Nottingham Forest. Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would love to attend, he probably will not be able to, but is it not a great event?

Kevin Brennan: It is a great event. I will not be able to attend, but I can do even better than attend: my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, will be there on behalf of the Labour party.

Vernon Coaker: And me.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend will also be there, so I can supply the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) with some first-rate people in support.
I had better press on, Mr Speaker, before you call us all back to order. The following year saw the battle of Passchendaele, which carries particular weight in Welsh cultural memory, as my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is sitting at the back, will know. We commemorated the battle’s centenary last year with a debate in this Chamber. Every village in Wales was affected by the battle, and 20,000 first language Welsh-speaking soldiers alone were killed at Passchendaele.
1917 was the year of Eisteddfod y Gadair Ddu, the Eisteddfod of the black chair. Some hon. Members will know that the Eisteddfod is the annual Welsh-language cultural festival, with poetry, dancing and singing. That year, Ellis Humphrey Evans, under the now-famous pseudonym, Hedd Wyn, was judged as the winner of the chair at the Eisteddfod, the highest honour available in Welsh culture, which is awarded to the best poet writing in traditional strict meter. However, when the winner’s pseudonym was called in the traditional ceremony at the Eisteddfod, no one stood up in the audience to reveal themselves as the triumphant poet. It was then announced that the winning bard had been killed in battle six weeks prior. Hedd Wyn had been one of 4,000 men killed on a single morning when the Royal Welch Fusiliers went over the top in the battle of Pilckem Ridge. The poet from Trawsfynydd has become the subject of poems and history lessons in classrooms across Wales, and even of an Oscar-nominated feature film.
That poignant story of Hedd Wyn captured the mourning of a nation. Stories such as these help us to remember the humanity of each individual who lost their life, and we have heard many such stories this evening. Each one was a son, a daughter, a loved one who was missed by someone at home. As we have seen today, they are still missed by their descendants in this House and across the country.
In my constituency, in 1917, the Women’s Land Army was formed; 20,000 women across the UK enlisted to work in places such as Green Farm in the Ely area of my constituency, which is now a council housing estate. As a farm, it was run predominantly by female farmhands during the war. One of the workers, Agnes Greatorex, left domestic service to work on the farm. She said:
“Every morning, we would get up at five o’clock and milk a hundred cows. We would then take the milk to Glan Ely Hospital.”
That is where the soldiers were kept. I am proud, as I am sure we all are, of the efforts of Agnes and so many women across the country; we have heard about those in today’s debate. In rightly commemorating the enfranchisement of some women in 1918, let us not forget that working-class women such as Agnes, or my grandmother, Gwenllian Evans, did not get the vote until nearly a decade later.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is talking about the effort of women during the great war. It is worth recognising that the Women’s Institute was founded during this period; as the Speaker knows, we held the centenary event in my constituency. These women were the stars of the home front as well, and they are worth mentioning.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to the founding of the Women’s Institute. May I also pay tribute to him for rightly drawing attention, as a former merchant seaman, to the sacrifice of the merchant navy? It is of course because of these sacrifices that the centenary of Armistice Day, and Remembrance Sunday each year, are an essential part of our cultural life. We must remember those who fought to keep us safe. We must recommit to ensuring that we never allow such division and devastation to happen again.
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will close, as others have done, with poetry. I turn to the words of Hedd Wyn’s poem “Rhyfel”, which means war in Welsh. I will read part of it in Welsh first and then give the English translation. It reads:
“Mae’r hen delynau genid gynt,
Yng nghrog ar gangau'r helyg draw,
A gwaedd y bechgyn lond y gwynt,
A’u gwaed yn gymysg efo’r glaw.
It translates as follows:
“The harps to which we sang, are hung
On willow boughs, and their refrain
Drowned by the anguish of the young
Whose blood is mingled with the rain.”
Mr Speaker, we will remember them.

Mims Davies: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. This has been a privilege and an education, a reminder that no community was truly unaffected by the visible and invisible scars of a century ago. Both Front Benchers spoke about sacrifice, and we have heard not only about emancipation, courage, gallantry, equality, bravery, impact, loss, opportunity, reflection, contribution, community, family, survivors, duty and tragedy, but about home and coming back safely.
This weekend, we will mark the Armistice with silence and we will pay our respects. This is an opportunity for all the communities represented in this House to come together. The Secretary of State spoke about blood, mud and misery, about a collective effort of commemoration and about using history to bring us together. He said that we should give thanks for the end of the great war and be ready for the special sound of church bells as they ring out across the land 100 years on. It is bitter sweet, said the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), and what a magnificent speech that was. He talked about learning from living memories, not just from history, about the poppy from Flanders fields, about civilian support for our Royal British Legion, and, yes, about common cause and, again, about bell ringing for those millions who never came home.
It really has been the most poignant and often painful afternoon of debate. It has been touching, thoughtful, passionate, emotional and, above all, personal. I shall try to pay tribute to some of these heartfelt contributions this afternoon. There were Members of Parliament from across this land in the Chamber—from Aldridge-Brownhills, Eastleigh, Henley, Ynys Môn, West Dunbartonshire to Cheltenham.
Moving tributes will be made this weekend as we all give thanks. I, too, will lay wreaths in my constituency—nine will be laid across the day. In the afternoon, in Netley,  I will be at the site of the Royal Victoria Hospital, where only a refurbished chapel stands. It is also the site of the Netley military cemetery, in which 636 Commonwealth service personnel from world war one and 35 service personnel from the second world war lay. The site is maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. There are also the graves of 69 Germans, 12 Belgians and one Pole, all of which continue, rightly, to be cared for.

John Hayes: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is always an honour to speak in this place, but, sometimes, it is also worth remembering that it is just as great an honour to sit and listen quietly, which is what I have done. I want her to do this, if she will. Many hon. Members have mentioned Victoria Cross winners—there were 627 in total in the first world war. Will the Government commit to ensure that every one of them, as a way to remember all those who served, are particularly marked in their locales—in the villages, towns and cities—perhaps by a plaque, by a road name, by a building or even by planting a tree? There will be war memorials, but I think that we can do more in this centenary year.

Mims Davies: My right hon. Friend is tenacity itself. It is right that such important people are raised in this debate, and I thank him for making such an important point.
Where do I begin with some of the contributions this afternoon? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) spoke about Brockenhurst. He said that we must not stint on defence and resources in peacetime. As we heard from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), we need to commit to peace, to remember the people who were in peril on the sea and to remember the pain that they felt. Also among us was a historian—my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson)—who has headed off to talk some more on this. His speech focused on why these events matter to young people and why we must have the sites commemorated appropriately, particularly for those who lost their lives at sea.
This Department has given £10 million to deliver events over the past four years. In addition, there has also been a mix of programmes from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Defence, and that is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about the hollowing out of communities by the great war, and it is absolutely right that we remember those sacrifices.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) told us about the Weeping Window, an installation in the heart of her constituency showing the bravery of service personnel, who continue to do so much for this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) showed a passion for peace-making by the Council of Europe. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) gave us some great, positive news about a statue to commemorate Sikh soldiers and spoke about unity, integration and all-important diversity. Creating such a memorial 100 years on is the right thing to do.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) told us about the shamrock poppy, which is rightly being worn in the House of Commons  to show this is a common cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about a devotion to duty, thanked his loved ones and mentioned the impact of the war on friends and family. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke about the bravery of the Commonwealth—local heroes from Reading and those from across the world—and mentioned clubs and charities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) reminded us not to forget about our furry friends—the animals who were casualties of war and who were taken by their owners to an unknown fate. He also told us about learning lessons from his grandfather and said that the first step in preventing this from happening again is never to forget. In the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we heard from a serviceman, who spoke about the new generation, uniformed cadets and young people always willing to serve.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) rightly raised the importance of culture. The 14-18 NOW project has engaged 35 million people, immersing them in cultural integration activities. We heard my right hon. Friend’s poetry oration, and he spoke about the horror of war and the sacrifice for rightful freedom.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked about the trenches and the sunflowers in Gallipoli, and he told us about emotional sacrifice and terrible stories of the “goodnight kiss”. It was a passionate and brave contribution, highlighting that, moments before the Armistice, we still lost our brave men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke about people coming home from war, including the story that the men left in one town were only enough to fill three pews in the church. He said that the huge effort of valour must always be remembered, and he reminded us that 20,000 men and boys were lost on the first day of the battle of the Somme.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) gave us a precious reflection on the Devonshires and spoke of the emancipation of women that came through the war—the gallantry of our men, and the impact of our women. I thank him for the huge amount of work he has done for this commemoration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) rightly told us about the bravery of our allies and the impact on Canadians, the US, Australians and people from New Zealand. He spoke of the struggle to return to normality after knowing such pain and of soldiers coming from foreign lands to do their duty.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned the sacrifice given to continue trade links and the connections between the Welsh and the Irish through Holyhead. He told us of 500 lives lost one night at sea; we will remember them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) spoke about Northumberland’s proud work to put together such a huge amount of battalions. There were 52 battalions and the regiment was awarded five VCs. She made a passionate, brave and typically  emotional speech. She also spoke about the submarines, and it was news to me how dangerous serving on submarines could be.
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for speaking about the importance of local cemeteries and about the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has done so much, contributing £96 million to over 2,000 projects to mark the centenary.
I find it so difficult not to mention everybody, but an important contribution for me was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who spoke about his great-grandmother—the foreboding matriarch who paid him 10p to put whisky in her tea. He mentioned the 1.7 million “surplus women” and quoted a headmistress who is said to have told girls, “You must make your way in the world as best you can,” after they lost brothers and others lost sons and they could perhaps have become the maiden generation.
I pay tribute to the huge amount of people who have been pivotal in the commemorations that we have been discussing, including the Royal British Legion, which has been at the heart of so much important activity over the last four years. In my constituency, Norman Brown MBE personally raised £1 million over 25 years to give to the Legion. The tireless community work done by people across the UK is incredible, and they are rightly well regarded. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, as we have heard, has sensitively maintained 23,000 sites in over 150 countries across the world.
I thank all hon. Members who have done so much. In particular, we have seen the remarkable contribution from the Prime Minister’s special representative for the first world war commemorations, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), whose work over six years in delivering these commemorations has been exceptional, alongside the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I thank all our important devolved Administrations who, as we heard, do so much across the UK and across the world.
It has been heartening to see this House come together to pay tribute to those who tragically paid the ultimate price. We rightly thank all those who went to serve their country and all those who continue to serve their country, to show them that all they have done is right because it has protected our precious freedom. The parliamentary prayer said that we should unite and knit together, in the spirit of recognition and peace, as we reflect on the centenary of the end of a war that brought so much bloodshed and so much horror. Let us all pledge that the sentiments expressed today over in St Margaret’s Church will remain in our thoughts today and over the weekend and in our hearts forever. We will remember them.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Iain Stewart.)
House adjourned.